[TESTGAP] Implement new test case to check the crm nexthop_group#18465
Merged
wangxin merged 3 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom May 19, 2025
Merged
[TESTGAP] Implement new test case to check the crm nexthop_group#18465wangxin 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). |
Collaborator
Author
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
StormLiangMS
changed the title
wangxin
approved these changes
May 19, 2025
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
May 19, 2025
…ic-net#18465) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3'
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202411: #18467 |
10 tasks
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202505: #18486 |
10 tasks
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
…ic-net#18465) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3'
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 20, 2025
) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3'
mssonicbld
added
Included in 202505 branch
and removed
Created PR to 202505 branch
labels
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 23, 2025
) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3'
mssonicbld
added
Included in 202411 branch
and removed
Created PR to 202411 branch
labels
11 tasks
mssonicbld
added a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt.msft
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2025
The fixture crm_resources is auto use fixture, in it, it will check the crm resources, the timeout of checking the crm resource is 90s, if there is a config reload did before the test, and since the default crm polling interval is 360s, so the 90s timeout is not enough, actually, there is another auto use fixture set_polling_interval which is also module level, in it, the crm polling interval will be changed to 1s, but it is called after the crm_resources, change the set_polling_interval always called before the crm_resources, then even if there is config reload did before this test, 90s timeout is enough to get the crm resources. <!-- 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: The fixture crm_resources is new added in sonic-net/sonic-mgmt#18465. Fixes # (issue) ### Type of change <!-- - Fill x for your type of change. - e.g. - [x] Bug fix --> - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement) - [ ] New Test case - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms - [x] Test case improvement ### Back port request - [ ] 202205 - [ ] 202305 - [ ] 202311 - [ ] 202405 - [ ] 202411 - [x] 202505 ### 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 <!-- (If it's a new feature, new test case) Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation? Link to the wiki page? -->
11 tasks
mssonicbld
added a commit
to Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 2, 2025
The fixture crm_resources is auto use fixture, in it, it will check the crm resources, the timeout of checking the crm resource is 90s, if there is a config reload did before the test, and since the default crm polling interval is 360s, so the 90s timeout is not enough, actually, there is another auto use fixture set_polling_interval which is also module level, in it, the crm polling interval will be changed to 1s, but it is called after the crm_resources, change the set_polling_interval always called before the crm_resources, then even if there is config reload did before this test, 90s timeout is enough to get the crm resources. <!-- 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: The fixture crm_resources is new added in sonic-net/sonic-mgmt#18465. Fixes # (issue) ### Type of change <!-- - Fill x for your type of change. - e.g. - [x] Bug fix --> - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement) - [ ] New Test case - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms - [x] Test case improvement ### Back port request - [ ] 202205 - [ ] 202305 - [ ] 202311 - [ ] 202405 - [ ] 202411 - [x] 202505 ### 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 <!-- (If it's a new feature, new test case) Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation? Link to the wiki page? -->
opcoder0
pushed a commit
to opcoder0/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2025
…ic-net#18465) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3' Signed-off-by: opcoder0 <[email protected]>
AharonMalkin
pushed a commit
to AharonMalkin/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 16, 2025
…ic-net#18465) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3' Signed-off-by: Aharon Malkin <[email protected]>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
…ic-net#18465) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3' Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <[email protected]>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2026
…ic-net#18465) This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity. What is the motivation for this PR? To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements. How did you do it? To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold. How did you verify/test it? Run the test case on device. Any platform specific information? Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case? 't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3' Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <[email protected]>
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
Summary:
Fixes # (issue)
This is a new test case to verify the CRM nexthop_group threshold, which is typically set to at least 256. However, for some HWSKUs, such as 7215 and 720dt, the value is lower. This is acceptable due to their specific application scenarios, which have lower requirements for ECMP group capacity.
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
To address the test gap related to nexthop group requirements.
How did you do it?
To verify the total number of nexthop groups supported by the platform and ensure it meets the minimum required threshold.
How did you verify/test it?
Run the test case on device.
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
't0', 't1', 'm0', 'mx', 'm1', 'm2', 'm3'
Documentation