Skip to content

Qos_yaml_updated for j2C+_topo-t2_single_node_max and min_wrt_PR23709#20393

Closed
ansrajpu-git wants to merge 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
ansrajpu-git:qos_yaml_30m_profile
Closed

Qos_yaml_updated for j2C+_topo-t2_single_node_max and min_wrt_PR23709#20393
ansrajpu-git wants to merge 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
ansrajpu-git:qos_yaml_30m_profile

Conversation

@ansrajpu-git
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description of PR

Qos_yaml_updated for j2C+_topo-t2_single_node_max and topo-t2_single_node_min with respect to PR #sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#23709

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

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

Back port request

  • 202205
  • 202305
  • 202311
  • 202405
  • 202411
  • 202505

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

Change in cable length & headroom size for UT2 & LT2 PR #23709

How did you do it?

How did you verify/test it?

Executed sonic-mgmt qos tests with 30m cable length profile

Any platform specific information?

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

This PR is dependent on PR -sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#23709

Documentation

@mssonicbld
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@ansrajpu-git
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@vmittal-msft , please review

@vmittal-msft
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@kenneth-arista @ysmanman

@vmittal-msft
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@ansrajpu-git please rebase

@rlhui
Copy link
Copy Markdown

rlhui commented Nov 19, 2025

@kenneth-arista please quickly check

@peterbailey-arista
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

If the values in this PR were calculated for PR 23709 then we should not merge this PR.

sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#23709 was abandoned in favor of sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#23848 which I already updated MGMT for over here: #20806

23848 and 20806 have both merged already, I believe this is the cause for your branch's conflicts

@vmittal-msft I don't think we should approve these changes

@ansrajpu-git
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@peterbailey-arista, I agree with you & this PR should not be merged.
@vmittal-msft, I am closing this PR, as these changes are no more required.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

Status: Done

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants