[GCU] Update the testcase to avoid duplicate ip range #16816
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
/azp run |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 7, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR?
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassiveV6"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPVac", "value": {"ip_range": ["192.168.0.0/21"], "name": "BGPVac", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive", "value": {"ip_range": ["10.255.0.0/25"], "name": "BGPSLBPassive", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]
The problem comes from that the running config already has 192.168.0.0 in BGPSLBPassive when add ip_range 192.168.0.0 to BGPVac. Then it cause the ip_range duplicate issue. Though the BGPSLBPassive's ip range change also in the patch, it comes after BGPVac which cause issue during the rollback.
The fix is to clean up the config before rollback.
How did you do it?
Remove BGP_PEER_RANGE config before rollback.
How did you verify/test it?
E2E
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
to mssonicbld/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 7, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR?
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassiveV6"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPVac", "value": {"ip_range": ["192.168.0.0/21"], "name": "BGPVac", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive", "value": {"ip_range": ["10.255.0.0/25"], "name": "BGPSLBPassive", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]
The problem comes from that the running config already has 192.168.0.0 in BGPSLBPassive when add ip_range 192.168.0.0 to BGPVac. Then it cause the ip_range duplicate issue. Though the BGPSLBPassive's ip range change also in the patch, it comes after BGPVac which cause issue during the rollback.
The fix is to clean up the config before rollback.
How did you do it?
Remove BGP_PEER_RANGE config before rollback.
How did you verify/test it?
E2E
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202411: #16840 |
|
Cherry-pick PR to 202405: #16841 |
This was referenced Feb 7, 2025
mssonicbld
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 8, 2025
What is the motivation for this PR?
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassiveV6"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPVac", "value": {"ip_range": ["192.168.0.0/21"], "name": "BGPVac", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive", "value": {"ip_range": ["10.255.0.0/25"], "name": "BGPSLBPassive", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]
The problem comes from that the running config already has 192.168.0.0 in BGPSLBPassive when add ip_range 192.168.0.0 to BGPVac. Then it cause the ip_range duplicate issue. Though the BGPSLBPassive's ip range change also in the patch, it comes after BGPVac which cause issue during the rollback.
The fix is to clean up the config before rollback.
How did you do it?
Remove BGP_PEER_RANGE config before rollback.
How did you verify/test it?
E2E
mssonicbld
added
Included in 202405 branch
and removed
Created PR to 202405 branch
labels
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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
ADO: 30945722
Summary: Remove BGP_PEER_RANGE config before rollback
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassiveV6"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPVac", "value": {"ip_range": ["192.168.0.0/21"], "name": "BGPVac", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "remove", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive"}]\n
Patch Applier: * [{"op": "add", "path": "/BGP_PEER_RANGE/BGPSLBPassive", "value": {"ip_range": ["10.255.0.0/25"], "name": "BGPSLBPassive", "src_address": "10.1.0.32"}}]
The problem comes from that the running config already has 192.168.0.0 in BGPSLBPassive when add ip_range 192.168.0.0 to BGPVac. Then it cause the ip_range duplicate issue. Though the BGPSLBPassive's ip range change also in the patch, it comes after BGPVac which cause issue during the rollback.
The fix is to clean up the config before rollback.
How did you do it?
Remove BGP_PEER_RANGE config before rollback.
How did you verify/test it?
E2E
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation