route/test_duplicate_routes.py Add Broadcom SAI specific log ignores

[justin-wong-ce]

Description of PR

Summary:
Add Broadcom SAI specific log ignores to route/test_duplicate_routes.py

#21030 has introduced a regression in Arista's 7060X6-16 switches after enabling route/test_duplicate_route.py.

The test logic passes, but fails on a loganalyzer check on these syslogs:

ERR syncd#syncd: [none] SAI_API_ROUTE:_brcm_sai_l3_route_config:5863 L3 route add failed with error Entry exists (0xfffffff8).
ERR syncd#syncd: [none] SAI_API_ROUTE:brcm_sai_xgs_route_create:420 L3 route add failed with error -6.
ERR syncd#syncd: [none] SAI_API_ROUTE:brcm_sai_create_route_entry:387 pd route create failed failed with error -6.

The test fails on the exact same loganalyzer check with the same 3 ERR syslogs on all 4 testcases.

I think this expected since the test logic is indeed adding duplicate routes. The PR also included changes to add similar ERR logs to ignorelog, with a TODO to move them to expected. Adding Broadcom SAI specific logignores along side PR added ones.

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?

route/test_duplicate_routes.py is failling on Arista-7060X6-16.

How did you do it?

Add expected Broadcom SAI specific ERR syslogs along side other related ERR syslogs to logignore added in PR #21030

How did you verify/test it?

Test no longer fails on Arista-7060X6-16

Any platform specific information?

Broadcom

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

Documentation

[mssonicbld]

/azp run

[azure-pipelines]

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

[bingwang-ms]

Hi @justin-wong-ce, I think team is planning on an image fix for this issue, and the issue is a generic issue.
@prabhataravind , @StormLiangMS Can you please double confirm?

[bingwang-ms]

Hi @justin-wong-ce, I think team is planning on an image fix for this issue, and the issue is a generic issue. @prabhataravind , @StormLiangMS Can you please double confirm?

Discussed offline, the error log is expected and should be ignored.

[prabhataravind]

discussed with Bing, it is better to have specific logs than a combined one..

[StormLiangMS]

hi @prabhataravind after revert the sairedis PR, do we still need this one? * 90d34ee9 - (HEAD -> 202505, origin/202505) Revert "[meta] do not fail bulk operations if MODE_IGNORE_ERROR (#1647)" (#1671) (35 hours ago) [Nikola Dancejic]

[prabhataravind]

hi @prabhataravind after revert the sairedis PR, do we still need this one? * 90d34ee9 - (HEAD -> 202505, origin/202505) Revert "[meta] do not fail bulk operations if MODE_IGNORE_ERROR (#1647)" (#1671) (35 hours ago) [Nikola Dancejic]

@StormLiangMS yes, the sairedis change fixes the orchagent crash but this fix is also needed to ignore the new signature of logs from BRCM SAI when duplicate routes are added.

[StormLiangMS]

but this case already can pass with sairedis revert, do we still need this one? This ignore could hide some real issue.

[prabhataravind]

but this case already can pass with sairedis revert, do we still need this one? This ignore could hide some real issue.

@justin-wong-ce please confirm if the test is passing without this change. @bingwang-ms for viz

[justin-wong-ce]

but this case already can pass with sairedis revert, do we still need this one? This ignore could hide some real issue.

@justin-wong-ce please confirm if the test is passing without this change. @bingwang-ms for viz

I can confirm it is now passing without this change. Closing the PR, thanks.