Dpdk backend: Fix dpdk test infrastructure to enable comparison of error output #3680
Conversation
|
Does -f work for dpdk successful and failed tests with this PR? |
|
Should I merge this? |
Yes. I verified by manually running few tests. |
@hesingh Any other comments/questions? |
| @@ -0,0 +1,167 @@ | |||
| { | |||
| "schema_version" : "1.0.0", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do you want to require checking in expected .bfrt.json files for programs that you expect an error message for? Do you expect to get much test coverage out of such expected output files?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we can avoid this check. I will update
| [--Werror=unexpected] error: execute method for different DirectMeter instances (meter0_0 and meter1_0) called within same action | ||
| pna-dpdk-direct-meter-err-1.p4(116): [--Werror=target-error] error: Direct counters and direct meters are unsupported for wildcard match table ipv4_da_lpm | ||
| table ipv4_da_lpm { | ||
| ^^^^^^^^^^^ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this error message accurate? That is, does DPDK restrict direct counters and meters to ONLY be used on tables where all key fields are match_kind exact? If that is a restriction for the DPDK implementation, why? It seems like a strange restriction to me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes Andy. Currently, dpdk target supports direct meter and direct counter only for exact match tables (all keys with match kind exact). We will remove this check as and when the target support is added.
No, thanks. Good to go. |
Fixes #3640
The changes in this PR includes: