Merged
Conversation
…rotate (sonic-net#590)" (sonic-net#641)" This reverts commit c225eb5.
pavel-shirshov
suggested changes
Jul 20, 2018
ansible/library/extract_log.py
Outdated
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you please explain, what is the sort order here
From older to newer or otherwise?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The sort order depends whether reversed param is True or False in sort function. By default, since older log file is considered greater then newer, the sort order will be from newer to older:
>>> f = ['syslog', 'syslog.1', 'syslog.3.gz', 'syslog.2.gz']
>>> sorted(f, cmp=filename_comparator)
['syslog', 'syslog.1', 'syslog.2.gz', 'syslog.3.gz']
This order was chosen for convenience, since we need to start looking from the most recent log file (from the begging of the list)
ansible/library/extract_log.py
Outdated
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
suggest to rename extract_line to extract_lines.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually it's not a copy operation
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Suggest to put this in
ansible always block
3af6d27 to
fc4332e
Compare
added 2 commits
July 23, 2018 13:27
Signed-off-by: stepanb <stepanb@mellanox.com>
In most scenarios of using this module it is reasonable to search 'start_string' in the most recent log file instead of searching all appearence of 'start_string' in all logs in /var/log/syslog*. This improves performance of tests which use loganalyze frequently (e.g crm, pfc wd) Signed-off-by: stepanb <stepanb@mellanox.com>
fc4332e to
da33a2b
Compare
pavel-shirshov
approved these changes
Jul 23, 2018
wangxin
pushed a commit
to wangxin/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 27, 2025
…o validation for values in output (sonic-net#659) This PR duplicates sonic-net#8457 <!-- 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 <!-- - Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed. - Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should reviewer start? background context? - List any dependencies that are required for this change. --> Enhanced test case "show platform ssdhealth" to do validation for values in the output Originally test did just check for keys: "Device Mode", "Health", "Temperature" - now it also checks the values detected(not "N/A"), does check that SSD health is bigger than 50%, and checks that temperature is less than 100C Added support to get the path to SSD based on platform type. Added support to define sensors that have "N/A" value per platform. Summary: Enhanced test case "show platform ssdhealth" to do validation for values in the output Fixes # (issue) ### Type of change <!-- - Fill x for your type of change. - e.g. - [x] Bug fix --> - [ ] Bug fix - [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement) - [ ] New Test case - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms - [x] Test case improvement ### Back port request - [ ] 202205 - [ ] 202305 - [ ] 202311 - [ ] 202405 - [ ] 202411 - [x] 202505 ### Approach #### What is the motivation for this PR? Enhanced test case "show platform ssdhealth" to do validation for values in the output #### How did you do it? Added validation for values in output #### How did you verify/test it? Executed test on different platforms #### 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? -->
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
3 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
Fixes logrotate issue during loganalyze phase in some tests (CRM, PFC WD)
Type of change
Approach
Revert back Sihui's fix for loganalyzer(Revert "[LogAnalyzer]: Accumulate syslog files rather than force logrotate" #641), added a task before "Extract log" to make sure logrotate won't run during log accumulation. Improved performance of "extract_log" ansible module to look for "start_string" starting from the most recent log file.
Run CRM, PFC WD tests several times.
Documentation