Skip to content
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

Added ansible support for LLDP TLVs(port-vlan-id, vlan-name, link-aggregation, maximum-frame-size) #406

Open
wants to merge 14 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

thenmozhi-gopal
Copy link
Contributor

@thenmozhi-gopal thenmozhi-gopal commented Jun 25, 2024

SUMMARY

Added ansible support for LLDP TLVs(port-vlan-id, vlan-name, link-aggregation, maximum-frame-size)
Related PR:
ansible-network/resource_module_models#264

GitHub Issues

List the GitHub issues impacted by this PR. If no Github issues are affected, please indicate this with "N/A".

GitHub Issue #
N/A
ISSUE TYPE
  • Feature Pull Request
COMPONENT NAME

Sonic_lldp_interfaces

OUTPUT
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Checklist:
  • I have performed a self-review of my own code to ensure there are no formatting, linting, or security issues
  • I have verified that new and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • I have not allowed coverage numbers to degenerate
  • I have maintained at least 90% code coverage
  • I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
  • I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
  • I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
  • I have maintained backward compatibility or have provided any relevant "breaking_changes" descriptions in a "fragment" file in the "changelogs/fragments" directory of this repository.
  • I have provided a summary for this PR in valid "fragment" file format in the "changelogs/fragments" directory of this repository branch. Reference : Ansible Change Log Document
How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

Regression test report:
Initial regression-report.pdf
Regression-report -latest - 12 Dec 2024
regression-2024-12-12-17-26-02.html.pdf
Regrssion-report-Jan 6 2025
regression_result_6_jan.pdf
Regression report - Jan10 2025
regression-2025-01-10-22-03-31.html.pdf

@kerry-meyer
Copy link
Collaborator

In order to proceed with the code review and merging of these changes, please fix the sanity and UT errors flagged for the current change set posted in this PR.

@stalabi1 stalabi1 added the enhancement New feature or request label Sep 30, 2024
@stalabi1 stalabi1 added this to the v3.1.0 milestone Oct 3, 2024
@awhaley-dell awhaley-dell self-requested a review December 5, 2024 22:31
Copy link
Collaborator

@awhaley-dell awhaley-dell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The content of this looks good from my first pass. I have only a minor formatting suggestion for the fragment file and a question about a unit test validation function.

Copy link
Collaborator

@kerry-meyer kerry-meyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This change set looks good for the most part, but I am posting several questions and requests for changes.

I would also like to check the UT coverage results after the additional changes are pushed.

Copy link
Collaborator

@kerry-meyer kerry-meyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm adding a couple more comments/questions on the unit test files.

@stalabi1
Copy link
Collaborator

stalabi1 commented Dec 6, 2024

Diff and check mode aren't implemented in for this module. Perhaps you can implement it in this PR. You can refer to the implementation of diff and check mode in the lldp_global module or any of the other several modules where it is implemented.

@thenmozhi-gopal
Copy link
Contributor Author

thenmozhi-gopal commented Dec 12, 2024

Diff and check mode aren't implemented in for this module. Perhaps you can implement it in this PR. You can refer to the implementation of diff and check mode in the lldp_global module or any of the other several modules where it is implemented.

diff and check mode implementation would be done as separate story (https://jira.cec.lab.emc.com/browse/SNC01F-55)

Copy link
Collaborator

@kerry-meyer kerry-meyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Although most of the previous change requests have been addressed and are now resolved, I am posting some additional change requests (and a question, which I think is answered by comments on the UT "test..." file).

Copy link
Collaborator

@kerry-meyer kerry-meyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have checked and "Resolved" all of my previously posted "Issues".

The current functional code and corresponding test results look good, although I am posting two "Issues" related to comments and documentation.

One of my new "Issues" is a revised form of a previous "Issue", changed due to the modified action in the affected allowed_vlan list conversion function. The other is just for removal of unneeded quotes in the "modules" file "Examples" section.

Copy link
Collaborator

@kerry-meyer kerry-meyer left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All currently posted changes and corresponding test results look good.

Thank you for providing the Ansible support for the LLDP interface TLVs.

Copy link
Collaborator

@awhaley-dell awhaley-dell left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

All my previous concerns were addressed. Looks good to me. Thanks for taking our advice into consideration.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants