-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 750
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
fix for voq fabric related tests #16068
Conversation
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
@mssonicbld I checked the test failed because of host unreachable in posttest not related to any changes I made please rerun |
@jfeng-arista, can you review this change |
10cbc86
to
9265ef8
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
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.
Besides the minor comments, this change looks good to me.
85bae55
to
a2bbe4d
Compare
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
/azp run |
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
@arlakshm can you help merge this PR ? |
The change looks good to me, also quickly tested on one of our systems and they are running ok. We can merge this up after Kenneth's comments get addressed. |
@jfeng-arista I already addressed all comments in latest commit please check |
What is the motivation for this PR? Fixing issue 16067. How did you do it? Changed to not re-write originalIsolateStatus but instead write to isolateStatus. Also added try/catch block to both tests as today if the test fails it exits without restoring the state of the port. I also added check to tests/voq/test_fabric_reach.py::test_fabric_reach_supervisor to run against only if asic is present. Right not the tests get the max asics for the platform and assumes they are all present. How did you verify/test it? Ran against t2 Nokia chassis
@bingwang-ms please approve? thanks. |
What is the motivation for this PR? Fixing issue 16067. How did you do it? Changed to not re-write originalIsolateStatus but instead write to isolateStatus. Also added try/catch block to both tests as today if the test fails it exits without restoring the state of the port. I also added check to tests/voq/test_fabric_reach.py::test_fabric_reach_supervisor to run against only if asic is present. Right not the tests get the max asics for the platform and assumes they are all present. How did you verify/test it? Ran against t2 Nokia chassis
Cherry-pick PR to 202405: #16393 |
great ! thank you |
What is the motivation for this PR? Fixing issue 16067. How did you do it? Changed to not re-write originalIsolateStatus but instead write to isolateStatus. Also added try/catch block to both tests as today if the test fails it exits without restoring the state of the port. I also added check to tests/voq/test_fabric_reach.py::test_fabric_reach_supervisor to run against only if asic is present. Right not the tests get the max asics for the platform and assumes they are all present. How did you verify/test it? Ran against t2 Nokia chassis
Description of PR
Summary:
Fixes # 16067
#16067
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
Fixing issue 16067.
How did you do it?
Changed to not re-write originalIsolateStatus but instead write to isolateStatus.
Also added try/catch block to both tests as today if the test fails it exits without restoring the state of the port.
I also added check to tests/voq/test_fabric_reach.py::test_fabric_reach_supervisor to run against only if asic is present. Right not the tests get the max asics for the platform and assumes they are all present.
How did you verify/test it?
Ran against t2 Nokia chassis
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation