Skip to content

[lag2] enhance lag2-minlink test (smart timeout)#950

Merged
stcheng merged 2 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom
mykolaf:minlink
Aug 27, 2019
Merged

[lag2] enhance lag2-minlink test (smart timeout)#950
stcheng merged 2 commits intosonic-net:masterfrom
mykolaf:minlink

Conversation

@mykolaf
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@mykolaf mykolaf commented Jun 12, 2019

Change-Id: I165d6ae8bc5ab2100b9d26c1d8c7ad02f0252cd8
Signed-off-by: Mykola Faryma [email protected]

Description of PR

Summary:
Remove unnecessary pauses, add periodic polling for expected state
Fixes # (issue) Lag minlink failing after recent changes to teamd.

Type of change

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

Approach

Remove unnecessary pauses, add periodic polling for expected state. Reduce overall test duration (50m ->30m for t1-lag), added option for user to specify the maximum waiting time via wait_timeout variable.

How did you do it?

Introduce deselect_time variable, representing time in which the lag member is expected to be deselected ( otherwise we would exit on first poll, and fail "verify lag member deselected" check.
The polling is done with as simple one-liner every 5s, allowing to proceed with the "verify" tasks as soon as the condition is met.

How did you verify/test it?

Run lag-minlink test on t1-lag & t0.

Any platform specific information?

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

Documentation

Change-Id: I165d6ae8bc5ab2100b9d26c1d8c7ad02f0252cd8
Signed-off-by: Mykola Faryma <[email protected]>
@mykolaf mykolaf requested a review from jleveque June 12, 2019 18:09
@jleveque jleveque requested a review from stcheng June 12, 2019 18:18
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@liat-grozovik liat-grozovik left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@mykolaf please have the option to get the value of the max value for timeout as a parameter from the user while the default should be kept as it was before.
the improvement is good as well.


- name: Set retries
set_fact:
retries: "{{ (wait_down_time / delay | float) | round(0, 'ceil') }}"
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

could you combine the set_fact steps into one?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

No, the variables depend on each other. In this case we would get an undefined var error

Change-Id: Ia0331f6cb78accbbb7019f30ec8b98f371cd8d98
Signed-off-by: Mykola Faryma <[email protected]>
@mykolaf mykolaf changed the title [lag2] enhance lag2-minlink test [lag2] enhance lag2-minlink test (smart timeout) Aug 9, 2019
@mykolaf mykolaf requested a review from liat-grozovik August 21, 2019 08:16
@stcheng stcheng merged commit 7e320a4 into sonic-net:master Aug 27, 2019
@mykolaf mykolaf deleted the minlink branch February 18, 2020 13:15
fraserg-arista pushed a commit to fraserg-arista/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Feb 24, 2026
…-net#950)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit easier:
-->
### Description of PR
adjust test_techsupport.py to support IPv6
* fixed mirroring fixture when ipv6 only topo is used
* verified cmd to check is supported with new topo

Summary:
Fixes # (issue)

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

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

### Back port request
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [ ] 202405
- [] 202411
- [x] 202505

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?
testing ipv6 only topology

#### How did you do it?
Adjusted the test to handle this topology,

#### How did you verify/test it?
internal regression

#### Any platform specific information?

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

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants