-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
tests: cleanup ospf6 ecmp inter area #16811
tests: cleanup ospf6 ecmp inter area #16811
Conversation
expect_num_nexthops() errors are not understandable. Use router_json_cmp. Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
eth3 shutdown is not applied because it is ospf6d.conf. Signed-off-by: Louis Scalbert <louis.scalbert@6wind.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I definitely like this approach better than the existing next-hop counting. If the test continues to fail intermittently, we'll have a much better idea of what is failing.
# tgen.mininet_cli() | ||
# Check nexthops post link-down | ||
expect_num_nexthops("r1", [1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2], 8) | ||
json_file = "{}/{}/show_ipv6_routes_ospf6-2.json".format(CWD, router.name) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also suggest putting in some "step()" invocations describing the testcase variation.
The test is still failing. Do you have any idea of what is going wrong ? |
it looks like the test is related ... maybe we need to modify the test based on this fix? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
looks good
Well, it's not the test that is broken (my original version's output just isn't as helpful as it could be for analyzing failures), but ospf6d. See #16197 for all the gory details. You probably want to skip the first comments and start at #16197 (comment) |
@@ -13,9 +13,6 @@ interface r7-eth2 | |||
ipv6 ospf6 hello-interval 2 | |||
ipv6 ospf6 dead-interval 10 | |||
! | |||
interface r7-eth3 | |||
shutdown | |||
! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Not having the shutdown in ospf6d.conf makes sense, but instead of removing it, it probably should get moved to zebra.conf. Same for r8.
) | ||
_, result = topotest.run_and_expect(test_func, None, count=60, wait=0.5) | ||
assertmsg = '"{}" JSON output mismatches'.format(router.name) | ||
assert result is None, assertmsg |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I like the JSON comparison instead of my original nexthop counting, but may I suggest to move these comparisons to a separate function instead of having essentially 3 copies of the same code?
is someone still working on this? |
Doesn't look like it. I can take over if @louis-6wind doesn't complete this PR. After all, I'm to blame for the original test case 😉 But I fear I won't be able to git push to it? |
@gromit1811 I have no time to complete the PR for the moment. Feel free to open a new PR |
Replaced/superseded by #17707 |
see commit logs. Changes to help the topotest maintenance