[DPB/VLAN] Add test VS cases and fix FDB flush issues #1242

vasant17 · 2020-04-06T22:13:34Z

What I did
Added DPB-VLAN dependency test cases
Fixed FDB flush issues encountered during test

Why I did it
When port is a member of VLAN and we do dynamic port breakout, we identify the dependency and remove the port from VLAN and then delete the port.
But, when we remove the port from VLAN, couple of things happen or should happen

FDB entries associated with the bridge port ID of the port in all VLANs should be removed.
Delete the bridge port.

This will enable/allow us to delete the port.

While testing we hit the following issue:
Bug: Even though we remove the port from all VLANS, we were unable to delete the port, as associated bridge port OID was still present

Root cause: The bridge port OID associated with port was NOT deleted because, associated FDB entries were NOT flushed.

Solution:
We are going to clear FDB entries in two cases:

When port is shutdown
When port is removed from VLAN.

Firstly, when port is shutdown, we are going to call SAI FDB flush API by passing bridge port OID. Note that we will do this only if the port has valid (NON NULL) bridge port OID. Thats because if you call SAI FDB flush without any valid bridge port OID or BVID, it will flush all FDB entries.

Secondly, whenever we remove the port from a VLAN, we are going to call SAI FDB flush API with valid <bridge port OID, BVID>

With both these fixes in place, irrespective of the order we will clean the FDB entries, delete bridge port OID and then delete the port. The order I am talking here is, whether the port is shutdown first or its removed from all VLANs.

How I verified it
Ran VS test cases

Details if related

vapatil@server09:~/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests$ sudo pytest --pdb -s -v --dvsname=vs-vp test_port_dpb_vlan.py
[sudo] password for vapatil: 
======================================================================= test session starts ========================================================================
platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.15+, pytest-3.3.0, py-1.8.0, pluggy-0.6.0 -- /usr/bin/python
cachedir: .cache
rootdir: /home/vapatil/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests, inifile:
collected 4 items                                                                                                                                                  

test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_dependency remove extra link dummy
PASSED                                                                                               [ 25%]
test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_one_port_one_vlan PASSED                                                                                        [ 50%]
test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_one_port_multiple_vlan PASSED                                                                                   [ 75%]
test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_all_port_10_vlans PASSED                                                                                        [100%]

==================================================================== 4 passed in 966.91 seconds ====================================================================

Test case results after refactoring code based on newly introduced dvslib.

vapatil@server09:~/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests$ sudo pytest -s -v --pdb --dvsname=vs-vp test_vlan.py 
================================================================================== test session starts ==================================================================================
platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.17, pytest-3.3.0, py-1.8.0, pluggy-0.6.0 -- /usr/bin/python
cachedir: .cache
rootdir: /home/vapatil/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests, inifile:
collected 25 items                                                                                                                                                                      

test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanAddRemove remove extra link dummy
PASSED                                                                                                                                 [  4%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_MultipleVlan PASSED                                                                                                                                  [  8%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanIncrementalConfig PASSED                                                                                                                         [ 12%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectKeyPrefix[test_input0-0] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 16%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectKeyPrefix[test_input1-0] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 20%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectKeyPrefix[test_input2-0] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 24%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectKeyPrefix[test_input3-1] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 28%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectValueType[test_input0-0] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 32%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectValueType[test_input1-0] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 36%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectValueType[test_input2-0] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 40%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanWithIncorrectValueType[test_input3-1] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 44%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddPortChannelToVlan PASSED                                                                                                                          [ 48%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddVlanMemberWithNonExistVlan PASSED                                                                                                                 [ 52%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_RemoveNonexistentVlan PASSED                                                                                                                         [ 56%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberTaggingMode[test_input0-expected0] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 60%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberTaggingMode[test_input1-expected1] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 64%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberTaggingMode[test_input2-expected2] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 68%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberTaggingMode[test_input3-expected3] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 72%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberTaggingMode[test_input4-expected4] PASSED                                                                                                  [ 76%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_AddMaxVlan SKIPPED                                                                                                                                   [ 80%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_RemoveVlanWithRouterInterface PASSED                                                                                                                 [ 84%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanDbData PASSED                                                                                                                                    [ 88%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberDbData[test_input0-expected0] PASSED                                                                                                       [ 92%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberDbData[test_input1-expected1] PASSED                                                                                                       [ 96%]
test_vlan.py::TestVlan::test_VlanMemberDbData[test_input2-expected2] PASSED                                                                                                       [100%]Exception AssertionError: AssertionError(u"assert 0 > 0\n +  where 0 = int('0')\n +    where '0' = <built-in method group of _sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7efd169a6ab0>(1)\n +      where <built-in method group of _sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7efd169a6ab0> = <_sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7efd169a6ab0>.group",) in <bound method ApplDbValidator.__del__ of <conftest.ApplDbValidator object at 0x7efd169f12d0>> ignored


========================================================================= 24 passed, 1 skipped in 96.55 seconds =========================================================================
vapatil@server09:~/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests$

vapatil@server09:~/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests$ sudo pytest -s -v --pdb --dvsname=vs-vp test_port_dpb_vlan.py
================================================================================== test session starts ==================================================================================
platform linux2 -- Python 2.7.17, pytest-3.3.0, py-1.8.0, pluggy-0.6.0 -- /usr/bin/python
cachedir: .cache
rootdir: /home/vapatil/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests, inifile:
collected 4 items

test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_dependency remove extra link dummy
remove extra link Vlan100@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan101@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan102@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan103@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan104@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan105@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan106@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan107@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan108@Bridge
remove extra link Vlan109@Bridge
Exception AssertionError: AssertionError(u"assert 0 > 0\n +  where 0 = int('0')\n +    where '0' = <built-in method group of _sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7fc3c05c9cb0>(1)\n +      where <built-in method group of _sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7fc3c05c9cb0> = <_sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7fc3c05c9cb0>.group",) in <bound method ApplDbValidator.__del__ of <conftest.ApplDbValidator object at 0x7fc3c0690b90>> ignored
PASSED                                                                                                                    [ 25%]
test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_one_port_one_vlan PASSED                                                                                                             [ 50%]
test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_one_port_multiple_vlan PASSED                                                                                                        [ 75%]
test_port_dpb_vlan.py::TestPortDPBVlan::test_all_port_10_vlans PASSED                                                                                                             [100%]Exception AssertionError: AssertionError(u"assert 0 > 0\n +  where 0 = int('0')\n +    where '0' = <built-in method group of _sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7fc3c05bc8b0>(1)\n +      where <built-in method group of _sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7fc3c05bc8b0> = <_sre.SRE_Match object at 0x7fc3c05bc8b0>.group",) in <bound method ApplDbValidator.__del__ of <conftest.ApplDbValidator object at 0x7fc3c0661490>> ignored


============================================================================== 4 passed in 299.05 seconds ===============================================================================
vapatil@server09:~/workspace/DPB/sonic-buildimage/src/sonic-swss/tests$

lguohan · 2020-04-08T19:04:27Z

retest this please

lguohan · 2020-04-12T08:19:22Z

please use the new test assert api. check with @daall 's recent pr

vasant17 · 2020-04-13T02:58:34Z

please use the new test assert api. check with @daall 's recent pr

Could you please provide me the PR# and if possible elaborate on what API you are talking abiut

lgtm-com · 2020-05-07T10:17:58Z

This pull request introduces 10 alerts when merging 90141af into bfaadcd - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

6 for Unused import
2 for Unused local variable
1 for First parameter of a method is not named 'self'
1 for 'import *' may pollute namespace

vasant17 · 2020-05-10T01:07:24Z

retest this please

daall

See comments. I mostly focused on the testing code. @prsunny can you help verify the FDB changes?

orchagent/fdborch.cpp

tests/dvslib/dvs_vlan.py

tests/test_port_dpb_vlan.py

daall · 2020-05-12T19:15:09Z

tests/test_port_dpb_vlan.py

+        assert(p.exists_in_asic_db() == True)
+
+        self.dvs_vlan.remove_vlan_member(vlan, p.get_name())
+        time.sleep(1)


If I'm understanding the flow correctly then I think this sleep can be replaced by waiting for the vlan member to be deleted.

This sleep was NOT there to wait for VLAN member to be deleted. Instead, when we remove port from VLAN member, port dependency gets removed and the ports gets deleted. Then we can verify that port is deleted from ASIC DB. This was correct. But anyways, I have introduced "not_exists_in_asic_db()" method in port_dpb.py class which uses the wai_for_deleted_entry() function to verify that port is deleted.

Since we are here, I have a questions for you. I saw that you have introduced field, value match method (wait_for_field_match()). Can we introduce one for just field. Why I am asking is:

Suppose I want to verify that port is added to to PORT_NAME_MAP key in counter DB, I can use it. Similary wait_for_field_delete_entry().

That could work! I'm wondering if it might be cleaner to support "don't cares" or even wild carding rather than adding another method.

lgtm-com · 2020-05-14T08:59:04Z

This pull request introduces 1 alert when merging f4023f6 into 727a518 - view on LGTM.com

new alerts:

1 for Unused import

tests/test_vlan.py

orchagent/fdborch.cpp

prsunny · 2020-05-20T02:15:22Z

orchagent/fdborch.cpp

+
+    SWSS_LOG_INFO("Flushing FDB bridge_port_oid: 0x%" PRIx64 ", and bvid_oid:0x%" PRIx64 ".", bridge_port_oid, vlan_oid);
+
+    rv = sai_fdb_api->flush_fdb_entries(gSwitchId, (uint32_t)attrs.size(), attrs.data());


Need CRM counters update. Can you check?

prsunny · 2020-05-20T02:16:45Z

orchagent/portsorch.cpp

@@ -3983,3 +3997,22 @@ void PortsOrch::getPortSerdesVal(const std::string& val_str,
        lane_values.push_back(lane_val);
    }
 }
+
+void PortsOrch::flushFDBEntries(sai_object_id_t bridge_port_id)


Why is flushFDBEntries in portsorch? IMO, this should be handled in fdborch

I agree. I cherrypicked these changes. Is it ok if I handle it in next PR or you insist on doing it in this PR?

I think it is better to handle it in this PR itself. The functionality doesn't fit correctly in portsorch

prsunny · 2020-05-20T02:17:56Z

orchagent/portsorch.cpp

+    attr.id = SAI_FDB_FLUSH_ATTR_BRIDGE_PORT_ID;
+    attr.value.oid = bridge_port_id;
+    attrs.push_back(attr);
+    rv = sai_fdb_api->flush_fdb_entries(gSwitchId, (uint32_t)attrs.size(), attrs.data());


Missing CRM counter update

They are updated on receiving flush notification in function storeFdbEntryState()

qiluo-msft · 2020-05-29T19:58:48Z

Could you fix the build? It is blocking vs and also LGTM checker.

vasant17 · 2020-05-29T20:34:49Z

Sure, will do it tonight.

…

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 12:59 PM Qi Luo ***@***.***> wrote: Could you fix the build? It is blocking vs and also LGTM checker. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1242 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIWEL5UTX3HCBJGG27OJF3TRUAHYLANCNFSM4MCUM3MQ> .

qiluo-msft · 2020-06-02T00:16:43Z

orchagent/portsorch.cpp

+
+                    gNeighOrch->ifChangeInformNextHop(alias,
+                                                      (operation_status == "down") ?
+                                                      false : true);


Is it the same as operation_status != "down" ?

Could you simplify the code as I mentioned?

In reply to: 433554505 [](ancestors = 433554505)

qiluo-msft · 2020-06-02T00:17:15Z

orchagent/portsorch.cpp

                    {
-                        gNeighOrch->ifChangeInformNextHop(alias, true);
+                        operation_status_changed = (string_oper_status.at(operation_status) != lag.m_oper_status) ?
+                                                   true : false;


true : false; [](start = 50, length = 14)

remove

Sorry I dint get what to remove. Could you please elaborate?

Remove ? true : false. The original bool statement is good enough.

In reply to: 433554653 [](ancestors = 433554653)

qiluo-msft

As comments

* Flush fdb entries when port/LAG is operational down Signed-off-by: Zhenggen Xu <zxu@linkedin.com> * Added vs-test cases, fixed one bug and addressed review feedback Signed-off-by: Zhenggen Xu <zxu@linkedin.com>

* FIX bugs and add VLAN scale test * Code-review comments addressed * Addressed code-review comments Co-authored-by: Vasant <vapatil@linkedin.com>

qiluo-msft

LGTM. Please also check with other reviewers.

vasant17 · 2020-06-09T21:41:10Z

retest this please

daall

One minor nitpick, rest LGTM.

daall · 2020-06-09T21:43:08Z

tests/dvslib/dvs_vlan.py

+    def create_port_channel(self, lag_id, admin_status="up", mtu="1500"):
+        lag = "PortChannel{}".format(lag_id)
+        lag_entry = {"admin_status": admin_status, "mtu": mtu}
+        self.config_db.create_entry("PORTCHANNEL", lag, lag_entry)
+
+    def remove_port_channel(self, lag_id):
+        lag = "PortChannel{}".format(lag_id)
+        self.config_db.delete_entry("PORTCHANNEL", lag)
+
+    def create_port_channel_member(self, lag_id, interface):
+        member = "PortChannel{}|{}".format(lag_id, interface)
+        member_entry = {"NULL": "NULL"}
+        self.config_db.create_entry("PORTCHANNEL_MEMBER", member, member_entry)
+
+    def remove_port_channel_member(self, lag_id, interface):
+        member = "PortChannel{}|{}".format(lag_id, interface)
+        self.config_db.delete_entry("PORTCHANNEL_MEMBER", member)


These were moved to dvs_lag so can we delete them from here?

vasant17 · 2020-06-10T03:47:10Z

retest this please

vasant17 · 2020-06-10T23:34:36Z

Thank you all!

…

On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 3:50 PM Prince Sunny ***@***.***> wrote: Merged #1242 <#1242> into master. — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1242 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIWEL5Q35O6KB374OJO26WDRWAE3ZANCNFSM4MCUM3MQ> .

…mponent fw updates (sonic-net#1242) - What I did Add the support for the automatic platform component fw updates - How I did it Add fwutil auto_update interfaces - How to verify it Work with dell to verify the auto_update interfaces with ssd firmware update. - Previous command output (if the output of a command-line utility has changed) - New command output (if the output of a command-line utility has changed) New added command outputs are available in the following HLD: sonic-net/SONiC#648

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch from 9dbd861 to 47793d4 Compare April 6, 2020 22:35

zhenggen-xu added the Port Breakout 🔱 label May 5, 2020

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch from 47793d4 to 90141af Compare May 7, 2020 09:41

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch 3 times, most recently from fe5eeb0 to 1c656d9 Compare May 7, 2020 20:23

zhenggen-xu requested a review from daall May 11, 2020 21:12

daall reviewed May 12, 2020

View reviewed changes

daall requested a review from prsunny May 12, 2020 19:16

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch 2 times, most recently from 7cd3814 to f4023f6 Compare May 14, 2020 08:23

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch from f4023f6 to ed7a3a5 Compare May 14, 2020 17:07

daall reviewed May 18, 2020

View reviewed changes

tests/test_vlan.py Show resolved Hide resolved

prsunny reviewed May 20, 2020

View reviewed changes

vasant17 mentioned this pull request May 28, 2020

[fdborch]: Flush fdb entries on port link down (Resolves #1063, #1294, resolves Azure/sonic-buildimage#4184) #1295

Closed

qiluo-msft self-requested a review May 29, 2020 00:09

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch 3 times, most recently from 4bed552 to e9be327 Compare May 29, 2020 00:21

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch 3 times, most recently from fb3994a to 63fc891 Compare May 30, 2020 02:22

qiluo-msft reviewed Jun 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

qiluo-msft requested changes Jun 2, 2020

View reviewed changes

zhenggen-xu and others added 7 commits June 6, 2020 13:58

Flush fdb entries when port/LAG is operational down (sonic-net#14)

66cf33f

* Flush fdb entries when port/LAG is operational down Signed-off-by: Zhenggen Xu <zxu@linkedin.com> * Added vs-test cases, fixed one bug and addressed review feedback Signed-off-by: Zhenggen Xu <zxu@linkedin.com>

FIX bugs and add VLAN scale test (sonic-net#27)

813c9d8

* FIX bugs and add VLAN scale test * Code-review comments addressed * Addressed code-review comments Co-authored-by: Vasant <vapatil@linkedin.com>

Refactor DPB-VLAN test cases based on DVSlib

1141437

Fixed VS test case failures

4cfe3ff

Code-review comments addressed

518028f

Move Flush FDB from portsorch to fdborch

0961590

Addressed code-review comments and additional cleanup

8e4ab1e

vasant17 force-pushed the DPB_VLAN_TEST_CASE_AND_FLUSH_FDB branch from 63fc891 to 8e4ab1e Compare June 6, 2020 22:27

vasant17 requested a review from qiluo-msft June 7, 2020 01:11

Code-review comments addressed

eb2c937

vasant17 mentioned this pull request Jun 9, 2020

DPB VLAN system test case and pulled in VLAN related DVSLIB code zhenggen-xu/sonic-swss#46

Merged

qiluo-msft previously approved these changes Jun 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

daall previously approved these changes Jun 9, 2020

View reviewed changes

Remove lag related methods from dvs_vlan.py

a5dedc2

vasant17 dismissed stale reviews from daall and qiluo-msft via a5dedc2 June 10, 2020 00:10

Fix a bug

d205997

qiluo-msft approved these changes Jun 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

daall approved these changes Jun 10, 2020

View reviewed changes

prsunny merged commit 2127fb9 into sonic-net:master Jun 10, 2020

prsunny mentioned this pull request Jul 8, 2020

[FDB] Doesn't flush fdb entries on port link down #1294

Closed

wendani mentioned this pull request Jul 20, 2021

[fdb & vstest/mirror] Populate FdbEntry port_name in APPL_DB SET path #1827

Open

anilkpandey mentioned this pull request Jan 24, 2022

FDB entry not removed in case when remove port from VLAN sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#7538

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[DPB/VLAN] Add test VS cases and fix FDB flush issues #1242

[DPB/VLAN] Add test VS cases and fix FDB flush issues #1242

vasant17 commented Apr 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

lguohan commented Apr 8, 2020

lguohan commented Apr 12, 2020

vasant17 commented Apr 13, 2020

lgtm-com bot commented May 7, 2020

vasant17 commented May 10, 2020

daall left a comment •

edited

Loading

daall May 12, 2020

vasant17 May 14, 2020

daall May 18, 2020

lgtm-com bot commented May 14, 2020

prsunny May 20, 2020

prsunny May 20, 2020

vasant17 May 28, 2020

prsunny May 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading

prsunny May 20, 2020

vasant17 May 28, 2020

qiluo-msft commented May 29, 2020

vasant17 commented May 29, 2020 via email

qiluo-msft Jun 2, 2020

vasant17 Jun 6, 2020

qiluo-msft Jun 7, 2020

qiluo-msft Jun 2, 2020

vasant17 Jun 6, 2020

qiluo-msft Jun 7, 2020

qiluo-msft left a comment

qiluo-msft left a comment

vasant17 commented Jun 9, 2020

daall left a comment

daall Jun 9, 2020

vasant17 commented Jun 10, 2020

vasant17 commented Jun 10, 2020 via email


		SWSS_LOG_INFO("Flushing FDB bridge_port_oid: 0x%" PRIx64 ", and bvid_oid:0x%" PRIx64 ".", bridge_port_oid, vlan_oid);

		rv = sai_fdb_api->flush_fdb_entries(gSwitchId, (uint32_t)attrs.size(), attrs.data());

[DPB/VLAN] Add test VS cases and fix FDB flush issues #1242

[DPB/VLAN] Add test VS cases and fix FDB flush issues #1242

Conversation

vasant17 commented Apr 6, 2020 • edited Loading

lguohan commented Apr 8, 2020

lguohan commented Apr 12, 2020

vasant17 commented Apr 13, 2020

lgtm-com bot commented May 7, 2020

vasant17 commented May 10, 2020

daall left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lgtm-com bot commented May 14, 2020

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

prsunny May 28, 2020 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

qiluo-msft commented May 29, 2020

vasant17 commented May 29, 2020 via email

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

qiluo-msft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

qiluo-msft left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vasant17 commented Jun 9, 2020

daall left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

vasant17 commented Jun 10, 2020

vasant17 commented Jun 10, 2020 via email

vasant17 commented Apr 6, 2020 •

edited

Loading

daall left a comment •

edited

Loading

prsunny May 28, 2020 •

edited

Loading