[action] [PR:18117] Add type check for ptf_ports to adapt physical port interface and portchannel interface

[mssonicbld]

Description of PR

Summary: Fix github issue #16529, add type check for ptf_ports, handle both list and dict ptf_ports
Fixes #

Issue Description

---

Background

Test case sub_port_interfaces.test_sub_port_interfaces.TestSubPorts#test_balancing_sub_ports has two fixture parameters: ['port', 'port_in_lag']

• test_balancing_sub_ports[port]
• test_balancing_sub_ports[port_in_lag]

---

Issue

• Case test_balancing_sub_ports[port] always pass
• Case test_balancing_sub_ports[port_in_lag] sometimes fail because Failed: Expected packet not available.
  In the test case, the src_port is selected randomly. If the src_port selects eth0 or eth1, the case will fail. The eth0 and eth1 are the ptf tested ports, which should not be selected as src_port

def test_balancing_sub_ports(self, duthost, ptfhost, ptfadapter, apply_balancing_config):
 new_sub_ports = apply_balancing_config['new_sub_ports']
 sub_ports = apply_balancing_config['sub_ports']
 src_ports = apply_balancing_config['src_ports']
 src_port = random.choice(src_ports) <<<<<< HERE

---

Root cause

The src_ports list is generated by function apply_balancing_config, which is defined intests/sub_port_interfaces/conftest.py.
In the current code, there already has a logic to remove ptf port from the src_ports list

But the ptf_ports type is different for Ethernet interface and portchannel interface, which lead to error

• For Ethernet interface, the ptf_ports type is list
• For portchannel interface, the ptf_ports type is dict

mg_facts = duthost.get_extended_minigraph_facts(tbinfo)
all_up_ports = set()
for port in list(mg_facts['minigraph_ports'].keys()):
 all_up_ports.add("eth" + str(mg_facts['minigraph_ptf_indices'][port]))
src_ports = tuple(all_up_ports.difference(ptf_ports)) <<<<<< HERE

• When the test case is test_balancing_sub_ports[port], the ptf_ports value is ['eth0', 'eth1']

(Pdb) all_up_ports
{'eth45', 'eth37', 'eth24', 'eth13', 'eth52', 'eth41', 'eth43', 'eth4', 'eth21', 'eth20', 'eth9', 'eth32', 'eth17', 'eth25', 'eth33', 'eth14', 'eth44', 'eth5', 'eth40', 'eth12', 'eth49', 'eth8', 'eth29', 'eth36', 'eth48', 'eth53', 'eth42', 'eth1', 'eth0', 'eth15', 'eth28', 'eth16'}

(Pdb) ptf_ports
['eth0', 'eth1']

After src_ports = tuple(all_up_ports.difference(ptf_ports)), the eth0 and eth1 are removed, so the src_ports list is correct

(Pdb) src_ports
('eth45', 'eth37', 'eth24', 'eth13', 'eth52', 'eth41', 'eth43', 'eth4', 'eth21', 'eth20', 'eth9', 'eth32', 'eth17', 'eth25', 'eth33', 'eth14', 'eth44', 'eth5', 'eth40', 'eth12', 'eth49', 'eth8', 'eth29', 'eth36', 'eth48', 'eth53', 'eth42', 'eth15', 'eth28', 'eth16')

• When the test case is test_balancing_sub_ports[port_in_lag], the ptf_ports value is OrderedDict([('bond0', 'eth0'), ('bond1', 'eth1')])

(Pdb) all_up_ports
{'eth52', 'eth14', 'eth0', 'eth1', 'eth33', 'eth4', 'eth17', 'eth32', 'eth24', 'eth36', 'eth53', 'eth41', 'eth49', 'eth44', 'eth13', 'eth5', 'eth9', 'eth15', 'eth45', 'eth40', 'eth16', 'eth20', 'eth42', 'eth21', 'eth25', 'eth48', 'eth12', 'eth28', 'eth43', 'eth29', 'eth8', 'eth37'}

(Pdb) ptf_ports
OrderedDict([('bond0', 'eth0'), ('bond1', 'eth1')])

After src_ports = tuple(all_up_ports.difference(ptf_ports)), the eth0 and eth1 still exist in src_ports list. When the src_port is randomly selected eth0 or eth1, the case will fail

(Pdb) src_ports
('eth52', 'eth14', 'eth0', 'eth1', 'eth33', 'eth4', 'eth17', 'eth32', 'eth24', 'eth36', 'eth53', 'eth41', 'eth49', 'eth44', 'eth13', 'eth5', 'eth9', 'eth15', 'eth45', 'eth40', 'eth16', 'eth20', 'eth42', 'eth21', 'eth25', 'eth48', 'eth12', 'eth28', 'eth43', 'eth29', 'eth8', 'eth37')

---

Fix

Add type check for ptf_ports, handle both list and dict ptf_ports

Type of change

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

Back port request

• 202012
• 202205
• 202305
• 202311
• 202405
• 202411

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

[mssonicbld]

Original PR: #18117

[mssonicbld]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).