conntrack: Fix a bug in swapAB

[ronensc]

When implementing the swapAB logic I missed the fact that in addition to swapping the values of the connection source and destination, their hashes should be swapped as well. Without this, aggregates such as Bytes_AB and Bytes_BA would be wrong.
I realized that I had the same bug in the unit test the was supposed to test it.
This PR fixes the problem and the test.

Once merged, this will allow us to spot connections that their source and destination were swapped by inspecting their newConnection record. The Bytes_AB would be 0 while Bytes_BA would be >0.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #415 (b13d7f2) into main (a31a0c0) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #415      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   64.39%   64.37%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          94       94              
  Lines        6560     6563       +3     
==========================================
+ Hits         4224     4225       +1     
- Misses       2096     2097       +1     
- Partials      240      241       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	64.37% <100.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pkg/pipeline/extract/conntrack/conn.go	78.68% <100.00%> (+0.53%)	⬆️
pkg/pipeline/extract/conntrack/conntrack.go	93.37% <100.00%> (ø)

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[jpinsonneau]

Good catch @ronensc ! Code LGTM

Would this bug result in duplicated connections coming from the same FLP ? I don't think I've seen such

[ronensc]

Good catch @ronensc ! Code LGTM

Would this bug result in duplicated connections coming from the same FLP ? I don't think I've seen such

I don't think this bug would result in duplicated connections

[jpinsonneau]

@ronensc @jotak we should backport this in release-1.2

[jotak]

+1 to backport.
If I understand correctly this is a small bug on bytes/pckt counters, only in the context of conversation flows.
I'd say it can be merged & backported without need for QE/doc given the limited impact - @memodi is that ok with you? The unit test look good to me

[github-actions]

New image: quay.io/netobserv/flowlogs-pipeline:d6f2770. It will expire after two weeks.

[memodi]

• @memodi is that ok with you?

Yes, I am fine. @Amoghrd - I vaguely remember you mentioned about noticing something similar..

[Amoghrd]

Yeah, I am fine too.
I had seen an issue with incorrect Byte and Packet numbers which is due to duplicate connections I think which Joel opened a bug for.

[jotak]

/approve

[openshift-ci]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: jotak

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [jotak]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment