[configlet] Skip last_update_time for comparison per design#18610
Merged
qiluo-msft merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom May 27, 2025
Merged
[configlet] Skip last_update_time for comparison per design#18610qiluo-msft merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
qiluo-msft merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom
Conversation
Collaborator
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
qiluo-msft
approved these changes
May 27, 2025
bachalla
pushed a commit
to bachalla/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Skip last_update_time per design. Fixes # (issue) ADO: 32970571 Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Due to recent change in sonic-net/sonic-platform-daemons#604, the last_udpate_time was added. It should be skipped for comparison per design. The last_update_time field was added in four place including post_diagnostic_values_to_db, post_port_dom_flags_to_db, post_port_transceiver_hw_status_flags_to_db, post_port_vdm_thresholds_to_db. So there are many table involved such as TRANSCEIVER_STATUS, TRANSCEIVER_STATUS_FLAG. Thus skip in the val comparison. How did you do it? Skip the last_update_time for comparison How did you verify/test it? E2E
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 19, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Skip last_update_time per design. Fixes # (issue) ADO: 32970571 Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Due to recent change in sonic-net/sonic-platform-daemons#604, the last_udpate_time was added. It should be skipped for comparison per design. The last_update_time field was added in four place including post_diagnostic_values_to_db, post_port_dom_flags_to_db, post_port_transceiver_hw_status_flags_to_db, post_port_vdm_thresholds_to_db. So there are many table involved such as TRANSCEIVER_STATUS, TRANSCEIVER_STATUS_FLAG. Thus skip in the val comparison. How did you do it? Skip the last_update_time for comparison How did you verify/test it? E2E
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202505: #19100 |
11 tasks
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 20, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Skip last_update_time per design. Fixes # (issue) ADO: 32970571 Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Due to recent change in sonic-net/sonic-platform-daemons#604, the last_udpate_time was added. It should be skipped for comparison per design. The last_update_time field was added in four place including post_diagnostic_values_to_db, post_port_dom_flags_to_db, post_port_transceiver_hw_status_flags_to_db, post_port_vdm_thresholds_to_db. So there are many table involved such as TRANSCEIVER_STATUS, TRANSCEIVER_STATUS_FLAG. Thus skip in the val comparison. How did you do it? Skip the last_update_time for comparison How did you verify/test it? E2E
Contributor
|
hi @qiluo-msft is this needed in 202411 as well? |
Contributor
I believe no. |
opcoder0
pushed a commit
to opcoder0/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 8, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Skip last_update_time per design. Fixes # (issue) ADO: 32970571 Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Due to recent change in sonic-net/sonic-platform-daemons#604, the last_udpate_time was added. It should be skipped for comparison per design. The last_update_time field was added in four place including post_diagnostic_values_to_db, post_port_dom_flags_to_db, post_port_transceiver_hw_status_flags_to_db, post_port_vdm_thresholds_to_db. So there are many table involved such as TRANSCEIVER_STATUS, TRANSCEIVER_STATUS_FLAG. Thus skip in the val comparison. How did you do it? Skip the last_update_time for comparison How did you verify/test it? E2E Signed-off-by: opcoder0 <110003254+opcoder0@users.noreply.github.com>
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 21, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Skip last_update_time per design. Fixes # (issue) ADO: 32970571 Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Due to recent change in sonic-net/sonic-platform-daemons#604, the last_udpate_time was added. It should be skipped for comparison per design. The last_update_time field was added in four place including post_diagnostic_values_to_db, post_port_dom_flags_to_db, post_port_transceiver_hw_status_flags_to_db, post_port_vdm_thresholds_to_db. So there are many table involved such as TRANSCEIVER_STATUS, TRANSCEIVER_STATUS_FLAG. Thus skip in the val comparison. How did you do it? Skip the last_update_time for comparison How did you verify/test it? E2E Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
Contributor
|
Need to backport to msft-202503 |
gshemesh2
pushed a commit
to gshemesh2/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 26, 2026
Description of PR Summary: Skip last_update_time per design. Fixes # (issue) ADO: 32970571 Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Due to recent change in sonic-net/sonic-platform-daemons#604, the last_udpate_time was added. It should be skipped for comparison per design. The last_update_time field was added in four place including post_diagnostic_values_to_db, post_port_dom_flags_to_db, post_port_transceiver_hw_status_flags_to_db, post_port_vdm_thresholds_to_db. So there are many table involved such as TRANSCEIVER_STATUS, TRANSCEIVER_STATUS_FLAG. Thus skip in the val comparison. How did you do it? Skip the last_update_time for comparison How did you verify/test it? E2E Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>
11 tasks
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to msft-202503: Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft#997 |
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
6 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: Skip last_update_time per design.
Fixes # (issue) ADO: 32970571
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
Due to recent change in sonic-net/sonic-platform-daemons#604, the last_udpate_time was added. It should be skipped for comparison per design.
The
last_update_timefield was added in four place includingpost_diagnostic_values_to_db, post_port_dom_flags_to_db, post_port_transceiver_hw_status_flags_to_db, post_port_vdm_thresholds_to_db.So there are many table involved such as
TRANSCEIVER_STATUS,TRANSCEIVER_STATUS_FLAG. Thus skip in the val comparison.How did you do it?
Skip the last_update_time for comparison
How did you verify/test it?
E2E
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation