Refine the logic of matching conditional mark.#16930
Merged
wangxin merged 3 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom Feb 26, 2025
Merged
Refine the logic of matching conditional mark.#16930wangxin merged 3 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom
wangxin merged 3 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
yutongzhang-microsoft
changed the title
11 tasks
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
wangxin
approved these changes
Feb 26, 2025
yutongzhang-microsoft
deleted the
yutongzhang/change_conditional_mark
branch
wangxin
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? This PR is based on PR #16930. After changing the logic of conditional marks, we need to add unit test to make sure it works as expected. How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? yutongzhang@sonic_mgmt:/data/sonic-mgmt$ python -m pytest --noconftest --capture=no tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py -v -s tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_1 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_2 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_3 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_contradicting_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_defalut_logic_operation PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_duplicated_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_empty_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_and PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_or PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_no_matches PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_partly_false_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_true_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED
11 tasks
nissampa
pushed a commit
to nissampa/sonic-mgmt_dpu_test
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? In PR sonic-net#14395, we optimized the matching rule for conditional marks by considering all potential matches. If a mark is unique among these matches, it is applied to the test case. Otherwise, the longest matching entry is used. In this PR, we further refine this logic by ensuring that the longest match where the condition is true is used. This means that if the conditions of the longest matching entry are false, we will consider the next longest matching entry. How did you do it? How did you verify/test it?
nissampa
pushed a commit
to nissampa/sonic-mgmt_dpu_test
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 4, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? This PR is based on PR sonic-net#16930. After changing the logic of conditional marks, we need to add unit test to make sure it works as expected. How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? yutongzhang@sonic_mgmt:/data/sonic-mgmt$ python -m pytest --noconftest --capture=no tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py -v -s tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_1 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_2 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_3 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_contradicting_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_defalut_logic_operation PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_duplicated_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_empty_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_and PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_or PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_no_matches PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_partly_false_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_true_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED
wangxin
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 5, 2025
…7317) What is the motivation for this PR? In PR #16930, we refined the logic of conditional marking to ensure that the longest matching entry with a True condition is prioritized. If the condition for the longest match is False, we then consider the next longest match. However, there is a special case where the longest match has a False condition, but we still want to adopt this False condition instead of falling back to shorter matches. For example, in a skip scenario: Shorter matching entries have True conditions, meaning the test should be skipped. The longest matching entry has a False condition, meaning the test should not be skipped. In this case, we actually want to respect the longest match and not skip the test. To address this, this PR introduces a new key, use_longest. When use_longest is set to True, only the conditions of the longest matching entry will be used, ensuring the intended behavior in such edge cases. How did you do it? To address this, this PR introduces a new key, use_longest. When use_longest is set to True, only the conditions of the longest matching entry will be used, ensuring the intended behavior in such edge cases. How did you verify/test it? Add unit test test cases
nnelluri-cisco
pushed a commit
to nnelluri-cisco/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? In PR sonic-net#14395, we optimized the matching rule for conditional marks by considering all potential matches. If a mark is unique among these matches, it is applied to the test case. Otherwise, the longest matching entry is used. In this PR, we further refine this logic by ensuring that the longest match where the condition is true is used. This means that if the conditions of the longest matching entry are false, we will consider the next longest matching entry. How did you do it? How did you verify/test it?
nnelluri-cisco
pushed a commit
to nnelluri-cisco/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? This PR is based on PR sonic-net#16930. After changing the logic of conditional marks, we need to add unit test to make sure it works as expected. How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? yutongzhang@sonic_mgmt:/data/sonic-mgmt$ python -m pytest --noconftest --capture=no tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py -v -s tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_1 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_2 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_3 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_contradicting_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_defalut_logic_operation PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_duplicated_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_empty_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_and PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_or PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_no_matches PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_partly_false_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_true_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED
nnelluri-cisco
pushed a commit
to nnelluri-cisco/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2025
…nic-net#17317) What is the motivation for this PR? In PR sonic-net#16930, we refined the logic of conditional marking to ensure that the longest matching entry with a True condition is prioritized. If the condition for the longest match is False, we then consider the next longest match. However, there is a special case where the longest match has a False condition, but we still want to adopt this False condition instead of falling back to shorter matches. For example, in a skip scenario: Shorter matching entries have True conditions, meaning the test should be skipped. The longest matching entry has a False condition, meaning the test should not be skipped. In this case, we actually want to respect the longest match and not skip the test. To address this, this PR introduces a new key, use_longest. When use_longest is set to True, only the conditions of the longest matching entry will be used, ensuring the intended behavior in such edge cases. How did you do it? To address this, this PR introduces a new key, use_longest. When use_longest is set to True, only the conditions of the longest matching entry will be used, ensuring the intended behavior in such edge cases. How did you verify/test it? Add unit test test cases
11 tasks
OriTrabelsi
pushed a commit
to OriTrabelsi/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR? This PR is based on PR sonic-net#16930. After changing the logic of conditional marks, we need to add unit test to make sure it works as expected. How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? yutongzhang@sonic_mgmt:/data/sonic-mgmt$ python -m pytest --noconftest --capture=no tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py -v -s tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_1 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_2 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_all_false_conditions_in_matching_path_3 PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_contradicting_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_defalut_logic_operation PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_duplicated_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_empty_conditions PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_and PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_logic_operation_or PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_no_matches PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_partly_false_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/unit_test/unittest_find_all_matches.py::TestFindAllMatches::test_true_conditions_in_longest_entry PASSED
OriTrabelsi
pushed a commit
to OriTrabelsi/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 1, 2025
…nic-net#17317) What is the motivation for this PR? In PR sonic-net#16930, we refined the logic of conditional marking to ensure that the longest matching entry with a True condition is prioritized. If the condition for the longest match is False, we then consider the next longest match. However, there is a special case where the longest match has a False condition, but we still want to adopt this False condition instead of falling back to shorter matches. For example, in a skip scenario: Shorter matching entries have True conditions, meaning the test should be skipped. The longest matching entry has a False condition, meaning the test should not be skipped. In this case, we actually want to respect the longest match and not skip the test. To address this, this PR introduces a new key, use_longest. When use_longest is set to True, only the conditions of the longest matching entry will be used, ensuring the intended behavior in such edge cases. How did you do it? To address this, this PR introduces a new key, use_longest. When use_longest is set to True, only the conditions of the longest matching entry will be used, ensuring the intended behavior in such edge cases. How did you verify/test it? Add unit test test cases
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
In PR #14395, we optimized the matching rule for conditional marks by considering all potential matches. If a mark is unique among these matches, it is applied to the test case. Otherwise, the longest matching entry is used.
In this PR, we further refine this logic by ensuring that the longest match where the condition is true is used. This means that if the conditions of the longest matching entry are false, we will consider the next longest matching entry.
Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
In PR #14395, we optimized the matching rule for conditional marks by considering all potential matches. If a mark is unique among these matches, it is applied to the test case. Otherwise, the longest matching entry is used.
In this PR, we further refine this logic by ensuring that the longest match where the condition is true is used. This means that if the conditions of the longest matching entry are false, we will consider the next longest matching entry.
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