Skip to content

Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests#6225

Merged
judyjoseph merged 2 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom
tcusto:everflow_t2
Oct 12, 2022
Merged

Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests#6225
judyjoseph merged 2 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom
tcusto:everflow_t2

Conversation

@tcusto
Copy link
Contributor

@tcusto tcusto commented Aug 25, 2022

Description of PR

This change adds support for running everflow on T2 chassis with multiple line cards.

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
  • Test case(new/improvement)

Back port request

  • 201911
  • 202012

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

Run everflow tests on T2 topology with chassis architecture. Also added Egress ACL/Egress mirroring tests to ipv6 test script, which were missing before.

How did you do it?

  • Created new function, gen_t2_setup_information and helper functions to find the T1 and T3 facing linecards in a chassis, and select the ports on them.
  • Updated the configuration code to put the configuration on the frontend linecards in a chassis. Also, for multiasic egress ACL, to configure the egress tables in the namespaces as well.
  • Made the namespace lookup dynamic, since different namespaces could be used on a card for a direction, as opposed to multiasic T1 topology where all upstream ports were on 1 namespace and downstream on another.
  • Modified the traffic test routines to handle different MAC addresses for packet ingress to the DUT vs egress, since the test would use multiple linecards.
  • Split up the duthost under test for T2, so that one duthost has the active everflow session, and the other is used to add the egress route for the everflow destination. The route is then shared via the intercard BGP to remote cards to activate the everflow session. Traffic flow is generally into a linecard which has everflow session active, hitting the ingress/egress ACL on that linecard, going through the recycle port, then being sent to a remote card for egress.
  • Added egress test case class to IPv6 test script, similar to structure of IPv4 script.
  • Added test case for port flap of everflow session destination. (this was a software issue that needed to be fixed)
  • Added test case for mirror destination route delete and recreate. (also a s/w issue that was fixed.)
  • Added test case to verify mirror session output when using local or remote ports as mirror session destination.

How did you verify/test it?

Ran against chassis with T2 min and full T2 topology.

test_verflow_ipv6.py:
=========================== short test summary info ============================
================== 40 passed, 106 warnings in 284.10 seconds ===================

test_everflow_testbed.py:
=========================== short test summary info ============================
SKIPPED [16] /data/tests/everflow/everflow_test_utilities.py:754: ingress ACL w/ egress Mirroring not supported, skipping
SKIPPED [4] /data/tests/everflow/test_everflow_testbed.py:404: Mirror port is always recycle port in T2, so the mirror port can't be controlled as in this test case.
SKIPPED [4] /data/tests/everflow/everflow_test_utilities.py:671: Skipping test since mirror policing is not supported on broadcom dnx platforms
SKIPPED [16] /data/tests/everflow/everflow_test_utilities.py:754: egress ACL w/ ingress Mirroring not supported, skipping
=========== 24 passed, 40 skipped, 1586 warnings in 2678.66 seconds ============

Any platform specific information?

I have only verified T2 multiasic cards.

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

T2.

Documentation

@linux-foundation-easycla
Copy link

linux-foundation-easycla bot commented Aug 25, 2022 •
edited
Loading

CLA Signed

The committers listed above are authorized under a signed CLA.

  • ✅ login: tcusto / name: Tom Custodio (858eed3)

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Aug 25, 2022

This pull request fixes 1 alert when merging 39d221c644ebaa3c7d1be55bd70faadd469f7e85 into 8f5c6b6 - view on LGTM.com

fixed alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Aug 29, 2022

This pull request fixes 1 alert when merging 747dce9569afea68499fdf0c22d9e43ee4d83adb into 4c8a35b - view on LGTM.com

fixed alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@judyjoseph
Copy link
Contributor

judyjoseph commented Sep 8, 2022

@tcusto please resolve the conflicts.

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Sep 9, 2022

This pull request fixes 1 alert when merging 44084bdc93d46dd93d01f0fde9b1081c78129102 into c4e4498 - view on LGTM.com

fixed alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Sep 13, 2022

This pull request introduces 4 alerts and fixes 1 when merging 5d76a42bc9882a97c1ae119a3b7397e37aaa9e85 into a5490f6 - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

  • 4 for Variable defined multiple times

fixed alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Sep 21, 2022

This pull request introduces 4 alerts and fixes 1 when merging 858eed3 into 9074e57 - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

  • 4 for Variable defined multiple times

fixed alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@lgtm-com
Copy link

lgtm-com bot commented Sep 21, 2022

This pull request fixes 1 alert when merging fbb8674 into 9074e57 - view on LGTM.com

fixed alerts:

  • 1 for Unused import

@judyjoseph
Copy link
Contributor

judyjoseph commented Sep 27, 2022

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

azure-pipelines bot commented Sep 27, 2022

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@judyjoseph
Copy link
Contributor

judyjoseph commented Sep 28, 2022

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

azure-pipelines bot commented Sep 28, 2022

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@judyjoseph
Copy link
Contributor

judyjoseph commented Oct 5, 2022

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

azure-pipelines bot commented Oct 5, 2022

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@judyjoseph
Copy link
Contributor

judyjoseph commented Oct 6, 2022

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

azure-pipelines bot commented Oct 6, 2022

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@judyjoseph
Copy link
Contributor

judyjoseph commented Oct 6, 2022

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link

azure-pipelines bot commented Oct 6, 2022

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

judyjoseph
judyjoseph reviewed Oct 11, 2022
View reviewed changes
judyjoseph
judyjoseph reviewed Oct 11, 2022
View reviewed changes
tests/everflow/everflow_test_utilities.py

@staticmethod
def get_expected_mirror_packet(mirror_session, setup, duthost, mirror_packet, check_ttl):
def get_expected_mirror_packet(mirror_session, setup, duthost, mirror_packet, check_ttl, router_mac=None):
Copy link
Contributor

@judyjoseph judyjoseph Oct 11, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Do we need this additional argument router_mac ? As I see the original parameter is also set from the setup as following gre_pkt_src_mac = setup['router_mac']

judyjoseph
judyjoseph approved these changes Oct 11, 2022
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Contributor

@judyjoseph judyjoseph left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM, it would be great if we raise PR per testcase as the changes are huge.

@judyjoseph judyjoseph merged commit c3f0980 into sonic-net:master Oct 12, 2022
wangxin pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 14, 2022
@tcusto @wangxin
Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests (#6225)
116a157 
* Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests
@StormLiangMS StormLiangMS mentioned this pull request Oct 18, 2022
Merged
6 tasks
StormLiangMS added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 19, 2022
@StormLiangMS
everflow test case fix (#6561)
b497aa0 
What is the motivation for this PR?
This PR #6225 introduced one issue for T0/T1. The pytest will be crashed when running everflow test.

The reason is because the implementation of one fixture, setup_recycle_port, which include the yield but not run into the yield for non t2 case, which will hit one known issue of pytest, which is fixed in newer version of pytest but not in what we are using now.
pytest-dev/pytest#7061

How did you do it?
Change the condition to make sure the yield would be executed

How did you verify/test it?
Run everflow test.

Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
wangxin pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 21, 2022
@StormLiangMS @wangxin
everflow test case fix (#6561)
cff413b 
What is the motivation for this PR?
This PR #6225 introduced one issue for T0/T1. The pytest will be crashed when running everflow test.

The reason is because the implementation of one fixture, setup_recycle_port, which include the yield but not run into the yield for non t2 case, which will hit one known issue of pytest, which is fixed in newer version of pytest but not in what we are using now.
pytest-dev/pytest#7061

How did you do it?
Change the condition to make sure the yield would be executed

How did you verify/test it?
Run everflow test.

Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
@JibinBao JibinBao mentioned this pull request Oct 24, 2022
Open
@yxieca yxieca mentioned this pull request Oct 25, 2022
Merged
6 tasks
yxieca added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2022
@yxieca
[everflow] address testbed setup type checking issue (#6609)
b55fe7f 
What is the motivation for this PR?
everflow test is failing after PR #6225.

How did you do it?
Topology type are more than t2/t0/t1. !(t2) doesn't mean either T0 or T1. This PR fixes the branch error.

How did you verify/test it?
Run everflow test on test that is not T0/T1/T2.

Signed-off-by: Ying Xie ying.xie@microsoft.com
yxieca added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 25, 2022
@yxieca
[everflow] address testbed setup type checking issue (#6609)
dd060e6 
What is the motivation for this PR?
everflow test is failing after PR #6225.

How did you do it?
Topology type are more than t2/t0/t1. !(t2) doesn't mean either T0 or T1. This PR fixes the branch error.

How did you verify/test it?
Run everflow test on test that is not T0/T1/T2.

Signed-off-by: Ying Xie ying.xie@microsoft.com
StormLiangMS added a commit to StormLiangMS/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2022
@StormLiangMS
Revert "Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests (sonic-net#6225)"
a976422 
This reverts commit c3f0980.
@StormLiangMS StormLiangMS mentioned this pull request Oct 26, 2022
Merged
6 tasks
yxieca pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2022
@StormLiangMS
Revert T2 everflow (#6632)
1422b9b 
* Revert "[everflow] address testbed setup type checking issue (#6609)"

This reverts commit b55fe7f.

* Revert "everflow test case fix (#6561)"

This reverts commit b497aa0.

* Revert "Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests (#6225)"

This reverts commit c3f0980.
yxieca pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 26, 2022
@StormLiangMS @yxieca
Revert T2 everflow (#6632)
f24dbb1 
* Revert "[everflow] address testbed setup type checking issue (#6609)"

This reverts commit b55fe7f.

* Revert "everflow test case fix (#6561)"

This reverts commit b497aa0.

* Revert "Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests (#6225)"

This reverts commit c3f0980.
allen-xf pushed a commit to allen-xf/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2022
@tcusto
Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests (sonic-net#6225)
add58c5 
* Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests
allen-xf pushed a commit to allen-xf/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2022
@StormLiangMS
everflow test case fix (sonic-net#6561)
90d96d4 
What is the motivation for this PR?
This PR sonic-net#6225 introduced one issue for T0/T1. The pytest will be crashed when running everflow test.

The reason is because the implementation of one fixture, setup_recycle_port, which include the yield but not run into the yield for non t2 case, which will hit one known issue of pytest, which is fixed in newer version of pytest but not in what we are using now.
pytest-dev/pytest#7061

How did you do it?
Change the condition to make sure the yield would be executed

How did you verify/test it?
Run everflow test.

Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
allen-xf pushed a commit to allen-xf/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2022
@yxieca
[everflow] address testbed setup type checking issue (sonic-net#6609)
b894ef9 
What is the motivation for this PR?
everflow test is failing after PR sonic-net#6225.

How did you do it?
Topology type are more than t2/t0/t1. !(t2) doesn't mean either T0 or T1. This PR fixes the branch error.

How did you verify/test it?
Run everflow test on test that is not T0/T1/T2.

Signed-off-by: Ying Xie ying.xie@microsoft.com
allen-xf pushed a commit to allen-xf/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2022
@StormLiangMS
Revert T2 everflow (sonic-net#6632)
2c1af0b 
* Revert "[everflow] address testbed setup type checking issue (sonic-net#6609)"

This reverts commit b55fe7f.

* Revert "everflow test case fix (sonic-net#6561)"

This reverts commit b497aa0.

* Revert "Everflow T2 topo support and ipv6 egress tests (sonic-net#6225)"

This reverts commit c3f0980.
judyjoseph added a commit to judyjoseph/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Dec 5, 2022
@judyjoseph
Additional fixes needed to get the PR sonic-net#6225 pass for T0/T1 a…
22d87d6 
…nd T2 topo
@judyjoseph judyjoseph mentioned this pull request Dec 5, 2022
Closed
6 tasks
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@judyjoseph judyjoseph judyjoseph approved these changes

@bingwang-ms bingwang-ms Awaiting requested review from bingwang-ms

Assignees

@judyjoseph judyjoseph

Labels

chassis Included in 202205 branch P0 Request for 202205 branch

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants

@tcusto @judyjoseph @wangxin @rlhui