[sonic-mgmt] Update transceiver onboarding HLD to make parameters attribute based by mihirpat1 · Pull Request #20230 · sonic-net/sonic-mgmt

mihirpat1 · 2025-08-13T18:52:41Z

Description of PR

This PR modernizes and significantly enhances the transceiver onboarding test plan by introducing a robust, modular attribute management system that replaces the previous CSV-based approach with a comprehensive JSON-based configuration framework.

Also, moved the transceiver_onboarding_test_plan.md file to transceiver/test_plan.md.

PRs planned to add attributes for various test categories

PR title	state
Move Transceiver Onboarding Test Plan to transceiver folder
Transceiver firmware upgrade testplan
[Transceiver onboarding] Add EEPROM and System test attributes in HLD
Optics insertion removal testplan

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)

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

ADO - 33984323

mssonicbld · 2025-08-13T18:52:49Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-08-13T18:52:58Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mssonicbld · 2025-08-13T21:44:34Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-08-13T21:44:41Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mssonicbld · 2025-08-13T22:02:51Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-08-13T22:02:59Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

az-pz

Minor comments. Looks great otherwise. Very thorough and comprehensive.

docs/testplan/transceiver_onboarding_test_plan.md

az-pz · 2025-08-14T17:08:30Z

docs/testplan/transceiver_onboarding_test_plan.md

+            "field_2": "specific_value_2",
+            "field_3": "specific_value_3",
+            "platform_hwsku_overrides": {
+              "PLATFORM_NAME+HWSKU_NAME": {


How are we concatenating PLATFORM_NAME and HWSKU_NAME? Is it joined by +?

@az-pz Added a note for this now

az-pz · 2025-08-14T17:22:15Z

docs/testplan/transceiver_onboarding_test_plan.md

 | Issue CLI command to shutdown a port | Validate link status using CLI configuration | Ensure that the link goes down |
 | Issue CLI command to startup a port | Validate link status using CLI configuration | Ensure that the link is up and the port appears in the LLDP table. |
-| In a loop, issue startup/shutdown command 100 times | Stress test for link status validation | Ensure link status toggles to up/down appropriately with each startup/shutdown command. Verify ports appear in the LLDP table when the link is up |
+| In a loop, issue startup/shutdown command for a port 100 times | Stress test for link status validation | Ensure link status toggles to up/down appropriately with each startup/shutdown command. Verify ports appear in the LLDP table when the link is up |


Are we not using an attribute for the iteration count here?

@az-pz I am planning to create a separate PR to use attributes for the system tests and will modify this TC with the relevant PR.
Added the current change to ensure that we don't miss documenting the TC

mssonicbld · 2025-08-15T00:32:06Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-08-15T00:32:15Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

mihirpat1 · 2025-08-15T23:29:06Z

@AnoopKamath, @bobby-nexthop @Junchao-Mellanox @roy-sror Can you please help in reviewing this PR?

mssonicbld · 2025-08-19T22:19:15Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-08-19T22:19:22Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

az-pz · 2025-08-20T16:08:47Z

docs/testplan/transceiver_onboarding_test_plan.md

-        "port_1": {
-          "vendor_name": "Vendor/Inc",
-          "vendor_pn": "QSFP-100G-AOC-10M"
+        "Ethernet0-96:4": {


Should we use Python list slicing syntax instead?

@az-pz I have addressed this now

mssonicbld · 2025-08-20T17:20:10Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-08-20T17:20:18Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

az-pz · 2025-08-20T20:27:44Z

docs/testplan/transceiver_onboarding_test_plan.md


    **Port Range Parsing Rules:**

    - **Range Format**: `EthernetX-Y` where X and Y are port numbers (X ≤ Y)


We can use python slicing for range format as well. It'd be consistent.

@az-pz I have addressed this now.

az-pz · 2025-08-20T20:31:34Z

docs/testplan/transceiver_onboarding_test_plan.md


+    **Port Configuration Keys:**
+    - **Individual Ports**: Standard SONiC port names (e.g., `"Ethernet0"`, `"Ethernet4"`)
+    - **Port Ranges**: Range notation (e.g., `"Ethernet4-12"`, `"Ethernet0-96:4"`)


"Ethernet0-96:4" should be updated to "Ethernet0:97:4".

@az-pz I have addressed this now.

arpit-nexthop · 2025-12-05T21:38:52Z

docs/testplan/transceiver/test_plan.md

+
+**Requirements**:
+
+- Parse the mandatory 6-component format: `{TYPE}-{SPEED}-{FORM_FACTOR}-{DEPLOYMENT}-{MEDIA_LANE_MASK}-{HOST_LANE_MASK}`


Any thoughts on making this attribute a dictionary?

"transceiver_configuration": "AOC-100-QSFP-100G_STRAIGHT-0x0F-0x0F"

The string is quite lengthy and more often it will be generated, so we will be generating the configuration and then decoding it, it will be more intutive if the fields of this string are a dictionary.

@arpit-nexthop I think that adding more fields to the dictionary in the corresponding DUT info file will increase the length to a large extent. Hence, I added the relevant details to be hardcoded in the string format and then have the parser to translate it to a dictionary.
Let me know if you still think that having a dictionary is better.

https://github.com/mihirpat1/sonic-mgmt/blob/4f8740d56208e1b8e687f750a2e9708eff227cec/docs/testplan/transceiver/test_plan.md#2-transceiver-configuration-string-parsing

@mihirpat1 I am more concerned with human understandability here than the file size.
AOC-100-QSFP-100G_STRAIGHT-0x0F-0x0F compresses lot of data that needs to be understood.

Just a preference on my part. I will let others comment on this as well.

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

mssonicbld · 2026-01-02T00:46:48Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2026-01-02T00:46:56Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

mssonicbld · 2026-01-29T00:34:38Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2026-01-29T00:34:46Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

mssonicbld · 2026-01-29T23:46:25Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2026-01-29T23:46:34Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

prgeor · 2026-02-02T19:52:06Z

docs/testplan/transceiver/examples/inventory/attributes/eeprom.json

+    "mandatory": ["sff8024_identifier", "dual_bank_supported"],
+    "defaults": {
+        "vdm_supported": false,
+        "is_non_dac_and_cmis": false,


@mihirpat1 I am not sure what this flag mean.

@prgeor Following is the meaning of this

This flag should be true for all CMIS optics which are non-DAC (400ZR, DR8 etc)

docs/testplan/transceiver/examples/inventory/attributes/eeprom.json

prgeor · 2026-02-02T19:52:59Z

docs/testplan/transceiver/examples/inventory/attributes/eeprom.json

+    "transceivers": {
+        "deployment_configurations": {
+            "8x100G_DR8": {
+                "vdm_supported": true,


@mihirpat1 do we have similar for pm_supported ?

@prgeor Added it now in the EEPROM attributes table

prgeor · 2026-02-02T20:21:59Z

docs/testplan/transceiver/examples/inventory/attributes/eeprom.json

@mihirpat1 some optics may support few DOM flags and some not. how are we handling such scenario?

@prgeor We plan to have separate attributes for each of such DOM flags.

prgeor · 2026-02-02T20:42:04Z

docs/testplan/transceiver/test_plan.md

@mihirpat1 should we limit only the infra part in this file? All detailed specific test should be in https://github.com/sonic-net/sonic-mgmt/pull/20359/changes ?

@prgeor Yes - we plan to remove the test case specific details from this file once this PR merges and we are fine with the test implementation HLD.

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

mssonicbld · 2026-02-02T21:17:09Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2026-02-02T21:17:17Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

mssonicbld · 2026-02-02T21:23:44Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2026-02-02T21:23:53Z

Azure Pipelines could not run because the pipeline triggers exclude this branch/path.

prgeor · 2026-02-06T19:17:20Z

docs/testplan/transceiver/examples/inventory/templates/deployment_templates.json

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+{


@mihirpat1 is this file per testbed ?

@prgeor No - this file is not supposed to contain testbed specific info.
It is supposed to exist as a single file containing all the supported deployment templates and their corresponding mandatory, optional attributes.

roy-sror · 2026-02-11T15:21:06Z

docs/testplan/transceiver/test_plan.md

@@ -431,13 +1127,13 @@ This section describes the automated process for copying firmware binaries to th
 To ensure only the necessary firmware binaries are present for each transceiver:

 1. **Parse `transceiver_firmware_info.csv`** to obtain the list of available firmware binaries, their versions, and associated vendor and part numbers.


why this file remains in a CSV format?

@roy-sror We are planning to remove this section via #20102 after the current PR is merged.
Will let @az-pz convert the CSV to JSON file via the above PR.

mihirpat1 requested review from wangxin and yxieca as code owners August 13, 2025 18:52

mihirpat1 requested review from Copilot and removed request for wangxin and yxieca August 13, 2025 18:52

mihirpat1 mentioned this pull request Aug 13, 2025

Transceiver firmware upgrade testplan #20102

Open

11 tasks

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

mihirpat1 requested a review from Copilot August 13, 2025 21:08

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

mihirpat1 requested a review from Copilot August 13, 2025 21:44

This comment was marked as outdated.

Sign in to view

az-pz reviewed Aug 14, 2025

View reviewed changes

mihirpat1 requested a review from Junchao-Mellanox August 15, 2025 18:31

mihirpat1 requested a review from roy-sror August 18, 2025 16:46

az-pz reviewed Aug 20, 2025

View reviewed changes

arpit-nexthop reviewed Dec 17, 2025

View reviewed changes

Added pre-req to validate port speed and RS FEC

521da12

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

mihirpat1 force-pushed the attribute_infra_hld_update branch from 4f8740d to 521da12 Compare January 2, 2026 00:46

Added dut_hostname to dut_info filename

c302602

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

Added test file hierarchy

2a97e3a

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

prgeor reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

docs/testplan/transceiver/examples/inventory/attributes/eeprom.json Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

prgeor reviewed Feb 2, 2026

View reviewed changes

Correct typo to eeprom_dump_timeout_sec

2db306f

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

Updated file hierarchy to add more test group categories

4d7f46c

Signed-off-by: Mihir Patel <[email protected]>

arpit-nexthop approved these changes Feb 4, 2026

View reviewed changes

prgeor reviewed Feb 6, 2026

View reviewed changes

prgeor approved these changes Feb 9, 2026

View reviewed changes

roy-sror reviewed Feb 11, 2026

View reviewed changes

roy-sror approved these changes Feb 12, 2026

View reviewed changes

prgeor enabled auto-merge (rebase) February 12, 2026 18:01

prgeor merged commit 5d4ea11 into sonic-net:master Feb 12, 2026
6 of 9 checks passed

kazinator-arista pushed a commit to kazinator-arista/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Mar 4, 2026

Update cisco-8000.ini (sonic-net#20230)

0ed4e36


		Port Range Parsing Rules:

		- Range Format: `EthernetX-Y` where X and Y are port numbers (X ≤ Y)


		Requirements:

		- Parse the mandatory 6-component format: `{TYPE}-{SPEED}-{FORM_FACTOR}-{DEPLOYMENT}-{MEDIA_LANE_MASK}-{HOST_LANE_MASK}`

		@@ -431,13 +1127,13 @@ This section describes the automated process for copying firmware binaries to th
		To ensure only the necessary firmware binaries are present for each transceiver:

		1. Parse `transceiver_firmware_info.csv` to obtain the list of available firmware binaries, their versions, and associated vendor and part numbers.

Conversation

mihirpat1 commented Aug 13, 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 Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

This comment was marked as outdated.

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Aug 13, 2025

Uh oh!

az-pz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Aug 15, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Aug 15, 2025

Uh oh!

mihirpat1 commented Aug 15, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Aug 19, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Aug 20, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Aug 20, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jan 2, 2026

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jan 2, 2026

mihirpat1 commented Aug 13, 2025 •

edited

Loading

mihirpat1 commented Aug 15, 2025 •

edited

Loading

roy-sror Feb 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading