[Mellanox] Update spf test related to error status when sw control is enabled by JibinBao · Pull Request #16573 · sonic-net/sonic-mgmt

JibinBao · 2025-01-17T09:18:21Z

Description of PR

Update spf platform test related to error status, due to PR: sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#20964
When software control is enabled, the port error status is as follows:

For active module, the expected state is OK
For cmis passive module, when cmis ver is 3.0, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr, else it is OK
For non cmis passive module, the expected state is 'Not supported'

When software control is disabled, the port error status keeps the original behaviour

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

Back port request

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

Update spf test related to error status when sw control is enabled

How did you do it?

When sw control is enabled, check the error stats as the following logic:

For active module, the expected state is OK
For cmis passive module, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr
For non cmis passive module, the expected state is 'Not supported'

How did you verify/test it?

Run test_get_error_description and test_check_sfputil_error_status when sw control is enabled

Any platform specific information?

Mellanox

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

Documentation

mssonicbld · 2025-01-17T09:18:24Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-01-17T09:18:37Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

…nic-buildimage#20964 When software control is enabled, the port error status is as follows: 1. For active module, the expected state is OK 2. For cmis passive module, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr 3. For non cmis passive module, the expected state is 'Not supported' when software control is disabled, the port error status keep the original behaviour

mssonicbld · 2025-01-20T03:56:34Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-01-20T03:56:46Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-01-21T02:59:05Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-01-21T02:59:17Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-01-21T05:13:19Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-01-21T05:13:31Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

JibinBao · 2025-01-21T05:30:27Z

/azpw run Azure.sonic-mgmt

mssonicbld · 2025-01-21T05:30:29Z

/AzurePipelines run Azure.sonic-mgmt

azure-pipelines · 2025-01-21T05:30:39Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

bingwang-ms · 2025-01-29T22:53:19Z

@prgeor Could you help review?

bingwang-ms · 2025-01-29T23:10:25Z

We saw the returned error description is Unknown for some module when sw_control is enabled

admin@str3-msn4700-02:~$ sudo sfputil show error-status --fetch-from-hardware
Port         Error Status
-----------  --------------
Ethernet0    Unknown

admin@str3-msn4700-02:~$ sudo sfputil show eeprom -d -p Ethernet0
Ethernet0: SFP EEPROM detected
        Active App Selection Host Lane 1: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 2: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 3: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 4: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 5: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 6: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 7: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 8: N/A
        Application Advertisement: 400G CR8 - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   200GBASE-CR4 (Clause 136) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   100GBASE-CR2 (Clause 136) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   50GBASE-CR (Clause 126) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   100GBASE-CR4 (Clause 92) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   25GBASE-CR CA-N (Clause 110) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   25GBASE-CR CA-S (Clause 110) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   25GBASE-CR CA-L (Clause 110) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
        CMIS Revision: 5.0
        Connector: No separable connector
        Encoding: N/A
        Extended Identifier: Power Class 1 (0.25W Max)
        Extended RateSelect Compliance: N/A
        Hardware Revision: 0.0
        Host Electrical Interface: N/A
        Host Lane Assignment Options: 1
        Host Lane Count: 8
        Identifier: QSFP-DD Double Density 8X Pluggable Transceiver
        Length Cable Assembly(m): 1.0
        Media Interface Code: Copper cable
        Media Interface Technology: Copper cable unequalized
        Media Lane Assignment Options: N/A
        Media Lane Count: 0
        Nominal Bit Rate(100Mbs): 0
        Specification compliance: passive_copper_media_interface
        Vendor Date Code(YYYY-MM-DD Lot): 2023-06-25   
        Vendor Name: Amphenol        
        Vendor OUI: 78-a7-14
        Vendor PN: NDYYYS-M201     
        Vendor Rev: A 
        Vendor SN: APF23232016YUY  
DOM values not supported for flat memory module

Can this change handle such case?

1. For cmis passive module, when cmis ver is 3.0, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr, else it is OK

JibinBao · 2025-02-21T06:37:50Z

We saw the returned error description is Unknown for some module when sw_control is enabled

admin@str3-msn4700-02:~$ sudo sfputil show error-status --fetch-from-hardware
Port         Error Status
-----------  --------------
Ethernet0    Unknown

admin@str3-msn4700-02:~$ sudo sfputil show eeprom -d -p Ethernet0
Ethernet0: SFP EEPROM detected
        Active App Selection Host Lane 1: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 2: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 3: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 4: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 5: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 6: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 7: N/A
        Active App Selection Host Lane 8: N/A
        Application Advertisement: 400G CR8 - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   200GBASE-CR4 (Clause 136) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   100GBASE-CR2 (Clause 136) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   50GBASE-CR (Clause 126) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   100GBASE-CR4 (Clause 92) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   25GBASE-CR CA-N (Clause 110) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   25GBASE-CR CA-S (Clause 110) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
                                   25GBASE-CR CA-L (Clause 110) - Host Assign (0x1) - Copper cable - Media Assign (Unknown)
        CMIS Revision: 5.0
        Connector: No separable connector
        Encoding: N/A
        Extended Identifier: Power Class 1 (0.25W Max)
        Extended RateSelect Compliance: N/A
        Hardware Revision: 0.0
        Host Electrical Interface: N/A
        Host Lane Assignment Options: 1
        Host Lane Count: 8
        Identifier: QSFP-DD Double Density 8X Pluggable Transceiver
        Length Cable Assembly(m): 1.0
        Media Interface Code: Copper cable
        Media Interface Technology: Copper cable unequalized
        Media Lane Assignment Options: N/A
        Media Lane Count: 0
        Nominal Bit Rate(100Mbs): 0
        Specification compliance: passive_copper_media_interface
        Vendor Date Code(YYYY-MM-DD Lot): 2023-06-25   
        Vendor Name: Amphenol        
        Vendor OUI: 78-a7-14
        Vendor PN: NDYYYS-M201     
        Vendor Rev: A 
        Vendor SN: APF23232016YUY  
DOM values not supported for flat memory module

Can this change handle such case?

No. This case looks like a real issue, which has been fixed by sonic-net/sonic-platform-common#538

mssonicbld · 2025-02-21T06:38:32Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-02-21T06:38:44Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

JibinBao · 2025-02-24T01:13:44Z

/azpw run Azure.sonic-mgmt

mssonicbld · 2025-02-24T01:13:46Z

/AzurePipelines run Azure.sonic-mgmt

azure-pipelines · 2025-02-24T01:13:56Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

JibinBao · 2025-02-24T09:36:27Z

/azpw run Azure.sonic-mgmt

mssonicbld · 2025-02-24T09:36:31Z

/AzurePipelines run Azure.sonic-mgmt

prabhataravind · 2025-06-26T04:00:05Z

@congh-nvidia @oleksandrivantsiv this one too needed for 202411

congh-nvidia · 2025-06-26T04:36:53Z

Hi @bingwang-ms , could you help cherry-pick this to 202411? Looks like the auto cherry-pick was not triggered.

prabhataravind · 2025-06-28T02:33:20Z

@congh-nvidia there's a cherry-pick conflict for 202411. Could you please raise a new PR for 202411? Also, is this needed for 202505?

congh-nvidia · 2025-06-30T02:38:15Z

Hi @JibinBao , please cherry-pick to 202411.
And @prabhataravind I think it's already in 202505 since it was merged on Mar.

… enabled (sonic-net#16573) * Update spf platform test related to error status, due to sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#20964 When software control is enabled, the port error status is as follows: 1. For active module, the expected state is OK 2. For cmis passive module, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr 3. For non cmis passive module, the expected state is 'Not supported' when software control is disabled, the port error status keep the original behaviour * fix issue caused by the vs * sfp test just run on physical setup * update sfp tests 1. For cmis passive module, when cmis ver is 3.0, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr, else it is OK

JibinBao · 2025-06-30T07:46:59Z

Hi @JibinBao , please cherry-pick to 202411. And @prabhataravind I think it's already in 202505 since it was merged on Mar.

@prabhataravind
Done for 202411, #19264. Can you help review it ?

… enabled (sonic-net#16573) * Update spf platform test related to error status, due to sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#20964 When software control is enabled, the port error status is as follows: 1. For active module, the expected state is OK 2. For cmis passive module, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr 3. For non cmis passive module, the expected state is 'Not supported' when software control is disabled, the port error status keep the original behaviour * fix issue caused by the vs * sfp test just run on physical setup * update sfp tests 1. For cmis passive module, when cmis ver is 3.0, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr, else it is OK

mssonicbld · 2025-06-30T16:15:27Z

Cherry-pick PR to 202411: #19273

… enabled (#16573) (#19264) [Mellanox] Update spf test related to error status when sw control is enabled

… enabled (sonic-net#16573) (sonic-net#19264) [Mellanox] Update spf test related to error status when sw control is enabled

PR #16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]>

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]>

PR #16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]>

Code sync sonic-net/sonic-mgmt:202411 => 202412 ``` * fb53396 (HEAD -> code-sync-202412, origin/code-sync-202412) r12f 250701:1725 - Merge remote-tracking branch 'base/202411' into code-sync-202412 |\ | * 54633cb (base/202411) prabhataravind 250701:0928 - Add t1-28-lag and t1-48-lag to tests_mark_conditions.yaml (sonic-net#19274) | * 9a23c16 Cong Hou 250416:2355 - Align the sensors data for SN4280 with sonic-buildimage PR#21845 (sonic-net#17747) | * 8b2d2cd Jibin Bao 250306:0835 - add watchdog test data for x86_64-nvidia_sn4280-r0 (sonic-net#17312) | * 5c8d5f0 Jibin Bao 250701:0045 - [Mellanox] Update spf test related to error status when sw control is enabled (sonic-net#16573) (sonic-net#19264) | * 0bea309 Yawen 250411:1620 - add hwsku V64 (sonic-net#17897) | * 8ab9e6b zitingguo-ms 250628:1755 - [test_static_route] Skip PT0 neighbor when checking route redistribution (sonic-net#19226) | * 4276be3 prabhataravind 250627:1827 - Support t1-48-lag topo for acl tests (sonic-net#19236) | * e070035 Wenda Chu 250625:1719 - Skip multiple servers testbed parsing on branch 202411 (sonic-net#19158) | * 0e5645d xwjiang-ms 250625:1619 - Roll back ceos image version since it's causing bgp failure (sonic-net#19180) | * 7625d06 ganglv 250624:1548 - Fix configuration after gnmi test (sonic-net#19150) | * 25e2e55 zitingguo-ms 250624:2000 - [ACL] Record service ports individually and add them to the acl_table_ports (sonic-net#19168) ```

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]>

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <[email protected]>

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Aharon Malkin <[email protected]>

… enabled (sonic-net#16573) * Update spf platform test related to error status, due to sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#20964 When software control is enabled, the port error status is as follows: 1. For active module, the expected state is OK 2. For cmis passive module, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr 3. For non cmis passive module, the expected state is 'Not supported' when software control is disabled, the port error status keep the original behaviour * fix issue caused by the vs * sfp test just run on physical setup * update sfp tests 1. For cmis passive module, when cmis ver is 3.0, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr, else it is OK Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <[email protected]>

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <[email protected]>

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]>

… enabled (sonic-net#16573) * Update spf platform test related to error status, due to sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#20964 When software control is enabled, the port error status is as follows: 1. For active module, the expected state is OK 2. For cmis passive module, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr 3. For non cmis passive module, the expected state is 'Not supported' when software control is disabled, the port error status keep the original behaviour * fix issue caused by the vs * sfp test just run on physical setup * update sfp tests 1. For cmis passive module, when cmis ver is 3.0, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr, else it is OK Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <[email protected]>

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <[email protected]>

…#18090) PR sonic-net#16573 added some fixtures for getting port information for sfp tests, however when these fixtures run on supervisor nodes, it fails as sfputil is not valid for supervisors. Add a check in these fixtures to skip supervisor nodes Signed-off-by: Liam Kearney <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Yael Tzur <[email protected]>

JibinBao requested a review from prgeor as a code owner January 17, 2025 09:18

nhe-NV added Request for 202405 branch Request for 202411 branch labels Jan 18, 2025

JibinBao force-pushed the sfp_error_state branch from b76445a to 5ce252f Compare January 20, 2025 03:56

fix issue caused by the vs

c7ec433

sfp test just run on physical setup

22e9cc5

nhe-NV mentioned this pull request Feb 5, 2025

[Mellanox] get_error_descripton should return Not supported for modules that does not support this API sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#21196

Merged

3 tasks

update sfp tests

edb9295

1. For cmis passive module, when cmis ver is 3.0, the expected state is ModuleLowPwr, else it is OK

kperumalbfn added the Approved for 202411 branch label Jun 30, 2025

mssonicbld added the Created PR to 202411 branch label Jun 30, 2025

mssonicbld mentioned this pull request Jun 30, 2025

[action] [PR:16573] [Mellanox] Update spf test related to error status when sw control is enabled #19273

Closed

11 tasks

kperumalbfn pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 30, 2025

[Mellanox] Update spf test related to error status when sw control is…

5c8d5f0

… enabled (#16573) (#19264) [Mellanox] Update spf test related to error status when sw control is enabled

mssonicbld mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2025

[action] [PR:18090] [platform_tests/sfp]: Skip getting sfp info for supervisor #19563

Merged

8 tasks

Conversation

JibinBao commented Jan 17, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Description of PR

Type of change

Back port request

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

How did you do it?

How did you verify/test it?

Any platform specific information?

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

Documentation

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jan 17, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jan 17, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jan 20, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jan 20, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

JibinBao commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jan 21, 2025

Uh oh!

bingwang-ms commented Jan 29, 2025

Uh oh!

bingwang-ms commented Jan 29, 2025

Uh oh!

JibinBao commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Feb 21, 2025

Uh oh!

JibinBao commented Feb 24, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Feb 24, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Feb 24, 2025

Uh oh!

JibinBao commented Feb 24, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Feb 24, 2025

Uh oh!

prabhataravind commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

congh-nvidia commented Jun 26, 2025

Uh oh!

prabhataravind commented Jun 28, 2025

Uh oh!

congh-nvidia commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

JibinBao commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jun 30, 2025

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

8 participants

JibinBao commented Jan 17, 2025 •

edited

Loading