Wait BGP sessions after changing mgmt IP#15936
Merged
bingwang-ms merged 1 commit intosonic-net:masterfrom Dec 6, 2024
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
Author
|
@yejianquan Can you help review? |
Collaborator
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202405: #15937 |
8 tasks
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 7, 2024
mssonicbld
added
Included in 202405 branch
and removed
Created PR to 202405 branch
labels
12 tasks
yejianquan
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Fixes #16436, caused by added BGP check in #15936, which doesn't account for T2 BGP time to come up Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Function wait_bgp_sessions timeout is too short for T2, fails in test_mgmt_ipv6_only test suite causing a fixture to error wrongly and not teardown properly leaving TB in bad state without ipv4 mgmt ip How did you do it? Increase timeout to 900s from 120s if duthost it is checking is supervisor How did you verify/test it? Run locally on T2 See for passing test: 17/01/2025 07:34:39 utilities.wait_until L0153 DEBUG | check_bgp_session_state_all_asics is False, wait 10 seconds and check again 17/01/2025 07:34:49 utilities.wait_until L0135 DEBUG | Time elapsed: 164.073392 seconds Confirming it needs more than 120 seconds Signed-off-by: Javier Tan [email protected] Co-authored-by: Jianquan Ye <[email protected]>
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Fixes sonic-net#16436, caused by added BGP check in sonic-net#15936, which doesn't account for T2 BGP time to come up Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Function wait_bgp_sessions timeout is too short for T2, fails in test_mgmt_ipv6_only test suite causing a fixture to error wrongly and not teardown properly leaving TB in bad state without ipv4 mgmt ip How did you do it? Increase timeout to 900s from 120s if duthost it is checking is supervisor How did you verify/test it? Run locally on T2 See for passing test: 17/01/2025 07:34:39 utilities.wait_until L0153 DEBUG | check_bgp_session_state_all_asics is False, wait 10 seconds and check again 17/01/2025 07:34:49 utilities.wait_until L0135 DEBUG | Time elapsed: 164.073392 seconds Confirming it needs more than 120 seconds Signed-off-by: Javier Tan [email protected] Co-authored-by: Jianquan Ye <[email protected]>
12 tasks
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 14, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Fixes #16436, caused by added BGP check in #15936, which doesn't account for T2 BGP time to come up Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Function wait_bgp_sessions timeout is too short for T2, fails in test_mgmt_ipv6_only test suite causing a fixture to error wrongly and not teardown properly leaving TB in bad state without ipv4 mgmt ip How did you do it? Increase timeout to 900s from 120s if duthost it is checking is supervisor How did you verify/test it? Run locally on T2 See for passing test: 17/01/2025 07:34:39 utilities.wait_until L0153 DEBUG | check_bgp_session_state_all_asics is False, wait 10 seconds and check again 17/01/2025 07:34:49 utilities.wait_until L0135 DEBUG | Time elapsed: 164.073392 seconds Confirming it needs more than 120 seconds Signed-off-by: Javier Tan [email protected] Co-authored-by: Jianquan Ye <[email protected]>
wangxin
pushed a commit
to wangxin/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Fixes sonic-net#16436, caused by added BGP check in sonic-net#15936, which doesn't account for T2 BGP time to come up Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Function wait_bgp_sessions timeout is too short for T2, fails in test_mgmt_ipv6_only test suite causing a fixture to error wrongly and not teardown properly leaving TB in bad state without ipv4 mgmt ip How did you do it? Increase timeout to 900s from 120s if duthost it is checking is supervisor How did you verify/test it? Run locally on T2 See for passing test: 17/01/2025 07:34:39 utilities.wait_until L0153 DEBUG | check_bgp_session_state_all_asics is False, wait 10 seconds and check again 17/01/2025 07:34:49 utilities.wait_until L0135 DEBUG | Time elapsed: 164.073392 seconds Confirming it needs more than 120 seconds Signed-off-by: Javier Tan [email protected] Co-authored-by: Jianquan Ye <[email protected]>
wangxin
pushed a commit
to wangxin/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 21, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Fixes sonic-net#16436, caused by added BGP check in sonic-net#15936, which doesn't account for T2 BGP time to come up Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Function wait_bgp_sessions timeout is too short for T2, fails in test_mgmt_ipv6_only test suite causing a fixture to error wrongly and not teardown properly leaving TB in bad state without ipv4 mgmt ip How did you do it? Increase timeout to 900s from 120s if duthost it is checking is supervisor How did you verify/test it? Run locally on T2 See for passing test: 17/01/2025 07:34:39 utilities.wait_until L0153 DEBUG | check_bgp_session_state_all_asics is False, wait 10 seconds and check again 17/01/2025 07:34:49 utilities.wait_until L0135 DEBUG | Time elapsed: 164.073392 seconds Confirming it needs more than 120 seconds Signed-off-by: Javier Tan [email protected]
nnelluri-cisco
pushed a commit
to nnelluri-cisco/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2025
Description of PR Summary: Fixes sonic-net#16436, caused by added BGP check in sonic-net#15936, which doesn't account for T2 BGP time to come up Approach What is the motivation for this PR? Function wait_bgp_sessions timeout is too short for T2, fails in test_mgmt_ipv6_only test suite causing a fixture to error wrongly and not teardown properly leaving TB in bad state without ipv4 mgmt ip How did you do it? Increase timeout to 900s from 120s if duthost it is checking is supervisor How did you verify/test it? Run locally on T2 See for passing test: 17/01/2025 07:34:39 utilities.wait_until L0153 DEBUG | check_bgp_session_state_all_asics is False, wait 10 seconds and check again 17/01/2025 07:34:49 utilities.wait_until L0135 DEBUG | Time elapsed: 164.073392 seconds Confirming it needs more than 120 seconds Signed-off-by: Javier Tan [email protected] Co-authored-by: Jianquan Ye <[email protected]>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
Summary:
This PR is to add another fix BGP not established issue in test
test_bgp_facts_ipv6_only.The fix submitted earlier in #15570 didn't address the issue completely as an Exception is thrown from
config_reloadfixture, which breaks the wait and check.Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
This PR is to add another fix BGP not established issue in test
test_bgp_facts_ipv6_only.How did you do it?
Add a function to wait BGP sessions up.
How did you verify/test it?
The change is verified on a physical testbed.
Any platform specific information?
No.
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Not a new test case.
Documentation