Skip to content

[default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure#15962

Merged
arlakshm merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
sanjair-git:def-route
Jan 3, 2025
Merged

[default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure#15962
arlakshm merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
sanjair-git:def-route

Conversation

@sanjair-git
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@sanjair-git sanjair-git commented Dec 9, 2024

Description of PR

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
This PR fixes issue #9052, where 'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap' fails with "Default route nexthops doesn't match the testbed topology" issue.

The count of the next hops is not matching with the upstream neighbor as per the topology (reading data from config facts).

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
  • Test case(new/improvement)

Back port request

  • 202012
  • 202205
  • 202305
  • 202311
  • 202405

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

  • 'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap' fails with "Default route nexthops doesn't match the testbed topology" issue.
  • The count of the next hops is not matching with the upstream neighbor as per the topology.

How did you do it?

  • Instead of skipping T3 neighbors of AZNGHub, use the address family and next hops information to find out the list of upstream neighbors.

How did you verify/test it?

  • Ran the above-mentioned test case on a T2 chassis and made sure the test passed without any issues.

Any platform specific information?

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

Documentation

image

image

@rlhui rlhui requested a review from arlakshm January 3, 2025 03:00
@arlakshm arlakshm merged commit a7d01e4 into sonic-net:master Jan 3, 2025
@sanjair-git sanjair-git mentioned this pull request Jan 15, 2025
Merged
11 tasks
nnelluri-cisco pushed a commit to nnelluri-cisco/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2025
@sanjair-git @nnelluri-cisco
route-bgp-flap: Fix (sonic-net#15962)
5be0f99 
What is the motivation for this PR?
'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap' fails with "Default route nexthops doesn't match the testbed topology" issue.
The count of the next hops is not matching with the upstream neighbor as per the topology.
How did you do it?
Instead of skipping T3 neighbors of AZNGHub, use the address family and next hops information to find out the list of upstream neighbors.
How did you verify/test it?
Ran the above-mentioned test case on a T2 chassis and made sure the test passed without any issues.
@mssonicbld mssonicbld mentioned this pull request Apr 18, 2025
Merged
8 tasks
@mssonicbld
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

mssonicbld commented Apr 18, 2025

Cherry-pick PR to msft-202503: Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft#204

arlakshm pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 18, 2025
@sanjair-git
Handle msft route-map as well (#16532)
f7f973a 
What is the motivation for this PR?
'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap', for msft specific AZNG route maps on upstream LC fails even with the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure #15962
How did you do it?
In addition to the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure #15962 , handle the case for all route maps.
How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on T2 chassis with upstream LC, having different sets of route maps and made sure the tests are passing as expected.
auspham pushed a commit to auspham/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request May 30, 2025
@mssonicbld
[action] [PR:16532] [default-route-bgp-flap]: [T2] Fix and handle AZN…
5ea7da4 
…G route-map for upstream LC (sonic-net#212)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit easier:
-->
### Description of PR
<!--
- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
- Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should reviewer start? background context?
- List any dependencies that are required for this change.
-->

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
In addition to the fix provided by sonic-net#15962 for the issue sonic-net#9052, this code change is also needed for handling AZNG route map changes on upstream LC.

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

- [x] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
 - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [x] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202012
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [x] 202405
- [x] 202411

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?

- '_test_default_route_with_bgp_flap_', for msft specific AZNG route maps on upstream LC fails even with the fix provided by sonic-net#15962

#### How did you do it?

- In addition to the fix provided by sonic-net#15962 , handle the case for all route maps.

#### How did you verify/test it?

- Ran the test on T2 chassis with upstream LC, having different sets of route maps and made sure the tests are passing as expected.

#### Any platform specific information?

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b7098b57-8225-4039-8ddb-8f3326ba7062)
opcoder0 pushed a commit to opcoder0/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Dec 8, 2025
@sanjair-git
Handle msft route-map as well (sonic-net#16532)
1dfa7a6 
What is the motivation for this PR?
'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap', for msft specific AZNG route maps on upstream LC fails even with the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962
How did you do it?
In addition to the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962 , handle the case for all route maps.
How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on T2 chassis with upstream LC, having different sets of route maps and made sure the tests are passing as expected.

Signed-off-by: opcoder0 <110003254+opcoder0@users.noreply.github.com>
AharonMalkin pushed a commit to AharonMalkin/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Dec 16, 2025
@sanjair-git @AharonMalkin
Handle msft route-map as well (sonic-net#16532)
93072fa 
What is the motivation for this PR?
'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap', for msft specific AZNG route maps on upstream LC fails even with the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962
How did you do it?
In addition to the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962 , handle the case for all route maps.
How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on T2 chassis with upstream LC, having different sets of route maps and made sure the tests are passing as expected.

Signed-off-by: Aharon Malkin <amalkin@nvidia.com>
gshemesh2 pushed a commit to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Dec 21, 2025
@sanjair-git @gshemesh2
Handle msft route-map as well (sonic-net#16532)
58d4b41 
What is the motivation for this PR?
'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap', for msft specific AZNG route maps on upstream LC fails even with the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962
How did you do it?
In addition to the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962 , handle the case for all route maps.
How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on T2 chassis with upstream LC, having different sets of route maps and made sure the tests are passing as expected.

Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
gshemesh2 pushed a commit to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jan 26, 2026
@sanjair-git @gshemesh2
Handle msft route-map as well (sonic-net#16532)
1704dc8 
What is the motivation for this PR?
'test_default_route_with_bgp_flap', for msft specific AZNG route maps on upstream LC fails even with the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962
How did you do it?
In addition to the fix provided by [default-route-bgp-flap]: Fix for 9052 - test failure sonic-net#15962 , handle the case for all route maps.
How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on T2 chassis with upstream LC, having different sets of route maps and made sure the tests are passing as expected.

Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
@PriyanshTratiya PriyanshTratiya mentioned this pull request Feb 23, 2026
Open
Pterosaur pushed a commit to Pterosaur/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Mar 25, 2026
@mssonicbld
[action] [PR:16532] [default-route-bgp-flap]: [T2] Fix and handle AZN…
8fb86a9 
…G route-map for upstream LC (sonic-net#1063)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit easier:
-->
### Description of PR
<!--
- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
- Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should reviewer start? background context?
- List any dependencies that are required for this change.
-->

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
In addition to the fix provided by sonic-net#15962 for the issue sonic-net#9052, this code change is also needed for handling AZNG route map changes on upstream LC.

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

- [x] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
 - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [x] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202012
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [x] 202405
- [x] 202411

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?

- '_test_default_route_with_bgp_flap_', for msft specific AZNG route maps on upstream LC fails even with the fix provided by sonic-net#15962

#### How did you do it?

- In addition to the fix provided by sonic-net#15962 , handle the case for all route maps.

#### How did you verify/test it?

- Ran the test on T2 chassis with upstream LC, having different sets of route maps and made sure the tests are passing as expected.

#### Any platform specific information?

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
![image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b7098b57-8225-4039-8ddb-8f3326ba7062)

Signed-off-by: Sonic Build Admin <sonicbld@microsoft.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@arlakshm arlakshm arlakshm approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

Approved for msft-202503 Branch Cherry Pick Conflict_msft-202412 Included in msft-202503 Branch Request for msft-202412 Branch Request for msft-202503 Branch Request for 202405 branch Request for 202411 branch

Projects

SONiC Chassis
Status: Done

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants

@sanjair-git @mssonicbld @arlakshm @PriyanshTratiya @tjchadaga