-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 749
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
GCU portchannel interface test #4875
Conversation
# } | ||
|
||
pytestmark = [ | ||
pytest.mark.topology('t0'), |
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.
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.
Can you find me a t1-lag topo? I can check if the test can be adopted.
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.
Maybe add t1-lag in another PR.
In this testcase, we are actually modifying the interface, like ip and attributes(mtu, min-link). Topo should not make any difference right?
output = apply_patch(duthost, json_data=json_patch, dest_file=tmpfile) | ||
expect_op_success(duthost, output) | ||
|
||
verify_attr_change(duthost, name, attr, value) |
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.
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.
How about checking portchannel pid?
docker exec -it teamd test -f /var/run/teamd/PortChannel0001.pid
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.
Checking process such as command ps
is better. There is risk that the process crashed but the pid file is still there.
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.
Changed to state dump
verification
Description of PR
Summary: Testcase of portchannel interface for generic updater apply-patch
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
End to End test support for Generic Updater apply-patch
This PR is to verify the usage of 'config apply-patch' works on portchannel interface
How did you do it?
First we setup clean portchannel interface env. Then make some config apply change. And check if the portchannel interfaces changed as expected.
How did you verify/test it?
Run test of sonic-mgmt/tests/generic_config_updater/test_portchannel_interface.py on KVM
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation