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

tests: Enhance error msgs for static route automation. #12816

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 21, 2023

Conversation

gpnaveen
Copy link
Contributor

  1. No Functionality Changes.
  2. Updated the error messages.

Signed-off-by: nguggarigoud nguggarigoud@vmware.com

@frrbot frrbot bot added the tests Topotests, make check, etc label Feb 15, 2023
@gpnaveen gpnaveen marked this pull request as ready for review February 15, 2023 13:57
@NetDEF-CI
Copy link
Collaborator

NetDEF-CI commented Feb 15, 2023

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Congratulations, this patch passed basic tests

Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System

CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-9712/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Copy link
Member

@ton31337 ton31337 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Please review again those changes, because they are inconsistent.

@@ -448,7 +448,7 @@ def test_static_route_2nh_p0_tc_1_ebgp(request):
)
assert (
result is not True
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nError: Route is" " still present in RIB".format(
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nExpected: Routes should not present in RIB \nError: Route is" " still present in RIB".format(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Same as above Route is " " .. looks weird.

@@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ def test_static_route_2nh_p0_tc_1_ebgp(request):
)
assert (
result is not True
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nError: Route is" " still present in RIB".format(
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nExpected: Routes should not present in RIB \nError: Route is" " still present in RIB".format(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ditto.

@@ -583,7 +583,7 @@ def test_static_route_2nh_p0_tc_1_ebgp(request):
)
assert (
result is not True
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nError: Route is" " still present in RIB".format(
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nExpected: Routes should not present in RIB \nError: Route is" " still present in RIB".format(
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ditto.

@@ -778,7 +778,7 @@ def test_static_route_2nh_admin_dist_p0_tc_2_ebgp(request):
)
assert (
result is not True
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nError: Routes is" "missing in RIB".format(tc_name)
), "Testcase {} : Failed \nExpected: Routes should not present in RIB \nError: Routes is" "missing in RIB".format(tc_name)
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ditto.

    tests: Enhance error messages for static route automation.

    Signed-off-by: nguggarigoud <nguggarigoud@vmware.com>
@github-actions github-actions bot added size/L and removed size/M labels Mar 7, 2023
@NetDEF-CI
Copy link
Collaborator

NetDEF-CI commented Mar 7, 2023

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

Continuous Integration Result: FAILED

See below for issues.
CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-10072/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

Get source / Pull Request: Successful

Building Stage: Successful

Basic Tests: Failed

Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3: Failed (click for details) Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3: Unknown Log URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-10072/artifact/TOPO3U18I386/TopotestDetails/

Topology Test Results are at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-TOPO3U18I386-10072/test

Topology Tests failed for Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 3
see full log at https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-10072/artifact/TOPO3U18I386/TopotestLogs/log_topotests.txt

Successful on other platforms/tests
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 9
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 0
  • Ubuntu 16.04 deb pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 2
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 5
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 1
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 8
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 6
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 5
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 2
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 6
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 2
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 7
  • Fedora 29 rpm pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 8
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 5
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 3
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 0
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 8
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 4
  • CentOS 7 rpm pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 4
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 2
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 9
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 0
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 3
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 9
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 8
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 7
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 0
  • Static analyzer (clang)
  • Debian 9 deb pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 9
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 2
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 8
  • Debian 10 deb pkg check
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 5
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 6
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 amd64 part 1
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 6
  • Ubuntu 20.04 deb pkg check
  • Ubuntu 18.04 deb pkg check
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 6
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 5
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 1
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 1
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 4
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 0
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 4
  • Topotests debian 10 amd64 part 3
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 arm8 part 3
  • Addresssanitizer topotests part 1
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 9
  • Topotests Ubuntu 18.04 i386 part 4

@gpnaveen
Copy link
Contributor Author

ci: rerun, un related test failed.

@NetDEF-CI
Copy link
Collaborator

Continuous Integration Result: SUCCESSFUL

Congratulations, this patch passed basic tests

Tested-by: NetDEF / OpenSourceRouting.org CI System

CI System Testrun URL: https://ci1.netdef.org/browse/FRR-PULLREQ2-10125/

This is a comment from an automated CI system.
For questions and feedback in regards to this CI system, please feel free to email
Martin Winter - mwinter (at) opensourcerouting.org.

@ton31337 ton31337 merged commit 2e1ea89 into FRRouting:master Mar 21, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
master size/L tests Topotests, make check, etc
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants