add upstream linecard check for chassis_packet#16043
Merged
yejianquan merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom Dec 13, 2024
Merged
add upstream linecard check for chassis_packet#16043yejianquan merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
yejianquan merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
Conversation
…correct max_prefix_cnt
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2024
…correct max_prefix_cnt (sonic-net#16043) Description of PR Summary: add upstream linecard check for chassis_packet, T2 Cisco device in get_route_prefix_snapshot_from_asicdb This was to use correct num_routes_withdrawn during asserts, where we only had upstream support for 'voq' and failed for 'chassis_packet' Approach What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? ------------------------------------------------------ generated xml file: /var/src/sonic-mgmt-int/tests/logs/route/test_route_consistency.xml ------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================================= 3 passed, 1 warning in 1482.39s (0:24:42) co-authorized by: jianquanye@microsoft.com
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202405: #16059 |
8 tasks
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2024
…correct max_prefix_cnt (#16043) Description of PR Summary: add upstream linecard check for chassis_packet, T2 Cisco device in get_route_prefix_snapshot_from_asicdb This was to use correct num_routes_withdrawn during asserts, where we only had upstream support for 'voq' and failed for 'chassis_packet' Approach What is the motivation for this PR? How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? ------------------------------------------------------ generated xml file: /var/src/sonic-mgmt-int/tests/logs/route/test_route_consistency.xml ------------------------------------------------------ ============================================================================= 3 passed, 1 warning in 1482.39s (0:24:42) co-authorized by: jianquanye@microsoft.com
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
Summary:
add upstream linecard check for chassis_packet, T2 Cisco device in get_route_prefix_snapshot_from_asicdb
This was to use correct num_routes_withdrawn during asserts, where we only had upstream support for 'voq' and failed for 'chassis_packet'
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?
------------------------------------------------------ generated xml file: /var/src/sonic-mgmt-int/tests/logs/route/test_route_consistency.xml ------------------------------------------------------
============================================================================= 3 passed, 1 warning in 1482.39s (0:24:42)
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation