fix the route check monit error seen when test_route_consistency.py

[abdosi]

What/Why I did:
Fix the route check monit error seen when test_route_consistency.py

How I did:

1. Explicit route_check at start/end of test case and restart monit routeCheck to remove fall positive monit error logs

[mssonicbld]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[abdosi]

@yejianquan / @cyw233 @vperumal for viz.

[cyw233]

Hey @abdosi, seems like the flaky8 check failed with following error:

flake8...................................................................Failed
- hook id: flake8
- exit code: 1

tests/route/test_route_consistency.py:19:1: E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1
tests/route/test_route_consistency.py:41:1: E302 expected 2 blank lines, found 1

[yejianquan]

Hi @abdosi , could you take a look into #16390 ?
And one concern from my side is:

I notice we have chance to hit this issue on other test modules also.

Like:

E               Match Messages:
E               2025 Jan 18 16:51:51.737497 x-lc3-1 ERR monit[894]: 'routeCheck' status failed (255) -- Failure results: {{#012    "asic0": {#012        "missed_ROUTE_TABLE_routes": [#012            "10.0.0.0/31",#012            "10.0.0.12/31",#012            "10.0.0.16/31",#012            "10.0.0.20/31",#012            "10.0.0.4/31",#012            "10.0.0.8/31",#012            "3.3.3.3/32"#012        ]#012    }#012}}#012Failed. Look at reported mismatches above#012add: {#012    "asic2": [],#012    "asic1": [],#012    "asic0": []#012}#012del: {#012    "asic2": [],#012    "asic1": [],#012    "asic0": []#012}

alive      = []
args       = [{'x-lc1-1': <tests.common.plugins.loganalyzer.loganalyzer.LogAnalyzer object at 0x7fd512e34b20>, 'x-sup-1].2025-01-18-16:50:57', x-sup-1': 'test_bfd_flap[ipv4-x-sup-1].2025-01-18-16:50:58'}]

This is found during

bfd/test_bfd_static_route.py::TestBfdStaticRoute::test_bfd_flap[x-sup-1]

https://elastictest.org/scheduler/testplan/678a4593103fb5950c7b0b1f?testcase=bfd%2Ftest_bfd_static_route.py&type=console&leftSideViewMode=detail&prop=start_time&order=ascending

It's flaky, not stably reproduced.
SHould we add this route check failure(missed_ROUTE_TABLE_routes) into common ignore list?

[yejianquan]

Another sample: https://elastictest.org/scheduler/testplan/678d03b9fcbd78dcd4a5925d?leftSideViewMode=detail&prop=start_time&order=ascending&testcase=bfd%2Ftest_bfd_static_route.py&type=console

[yejianquan]

And this https://elastictest.org/scheduler/testplan/678a4593103fb5950c7b0b1f?testcase=lldp%2Ftest_lldp_syncd.py_str3-8800-lc4-1&type=console&leftSideViewMode=detail&prop=start_time&order=ascending

[yejianquan]

Since the function could be used in wide scope and before every function in the future.
monit restart could be fast, but route_check could be slow
Can we use SafeThreadPoolExecutor to run them in parallel?

[yejianquan]

Maybe make it as a sanity check?

[yejianquan]

Hi @abdosi ,
with #16876 we can close #16586?

[cyw233]

Covered by #16876, we can close this PR now