Skip to content
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

Add support for PBLQ per-interface capabilities #228

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

earies
Copy link

@earies earies commented Dec 6, 2024

Physical/channelized interfaces could support a variety of Generator or
Reflector capabilities. An optional field is added to each capability
to report a list of supported interfaces. Should this field not be set,
it is assumed that all interfaces are supported for the capability
reported.

Physical/channelized interfaces could support a variety of Generator or
Reflector capabilities.  An optional field is added to each capability
to report a list of supported interfaces.  Should this field not be set,
it is assumed that all interfaces are supported for the capability
reported.
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Dec 6, 2024

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 12280713436

Details

  • 0 of 20 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
  • No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
  • Overall coverage decreased (-0.002%) to 1.14%

Changes Missing Coverage Covered Lines Changed/Added Lines %
packet_link_qualification/packet_link_qualification.pb.go 0 20 0.0%
Totals Coverage Status
Change from base Build 12267172196: -0.002%
Covered Lines: 166
Relevant Lines: 14562

💛 - Coveralls

@@ -326,6 +331,9 @@ message PacketInjectorCapabilities {
// Loopback modes that are supported by the device when using the packet
// injector mode.
repeated PacketInjectorLoopbackMode loopback_modes = 8;
// List of interfaces that support this capability. If this field is not
// populated then it is assumed that all interfaces are supported.
repeated string supported_interfaces = 9;

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Not sure if this makes sense but an interface can have multiple capabilities right?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

The proto structs currently assumes system wide

Each capability is expanded in this patch set to accomodate a list of interfaces per capability so yes, the same interface could be reported under each capability if an interface supports multiple capabilities.

Another option is to create an entirely new capabilities API (or modify existing in non-backwards compatible) that does not make the system wide assumption from the start and allows for further granularity

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants