-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 717
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
Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to Ingress drop counters for qos tests #9896
Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to Ingress drop counters for qos tests #9896
Conversation
The pre-commit check detected issues in the files touched by this pull request. Detailed pre-commit check results: To run the pre-commit checks locally, you can follow below steps:
|
tests/saitests/py3/sai_qos_tests.py
Outdated
for cntr in egress_counters: | ||
assert (xmit_counters[cntr] == xmit_counters_base[cntr] | ||
), 'unexpectedly TX drop counter increase, {}'.format(test_stage) | ||
# For dnx few extra ipv6 NS/RA pkt received from VM, adding to counter value |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ansrajpu-git Original code is stating these counters not supported for DNX. Is this not the case ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ansrajpu-git Original code is stating these counters not supported for DNX. Is this not the case ?
vineet, these drop counters were not supported initially and they are supported now. So enabling the check
The pre-commit check detected issues in the files touched by this pull request. Detailed pre-commit check results: To run the pre-commit checks locally, you can follow below steps:
|
@ansrajpu-git Could you raise a separate PR 202205 branch ? as there are conflicts |
…for qos tests (sonic-net#9896) * Qos_LossyQueueTest fix_adding COUNTER MARGIN * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCXonTest * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCTest * Flake8 fixes * testQosSaiPFCXoffLimit updated with correct check * Conditional check corrected for LossyQueueTest * flake8 fix
…et#9896) * Qos_LossyQueueTest fix_adding COUNTER MARGIN * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCXonTest * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCTest * Flake8 fixes * testQosSaiPFCXoffLimit updated with correct check * Conditional check corrected for LossyQueueTest * flake8 fix
Cherry-pick PR to 202305: #10390 |
* Qos_LossyQueueTest fix_adding COUNTER MARGIN * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCXonTest * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCTest * Flake8 fixes * testQosSaiPFCXoffLimit updated with correct check * Conditional check corrected for LossyQueueTest * flake8 fix
…et#9896) * Qos_LossyQueueTest fix_adding COUNTER MARGIN * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCXonTest * Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to qos PFCTest * Flake8 fixes * testQosSaiPFCXoffLimit updated with correct check * Conditional check corrected for LossyQueueTest * flake8 fix
Description of PR
Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to ingress drop counter for below test scenarios to avoid flakey results.
Summary:
Sometimes for dnx, few extra ipv6 NS/RA pkt received from VM which get added to counter value & may give inconsistent test results.
Adding COUNTER_MARGIN to provide room to 2 extra pkt incase, extra traffic received. This will avoid inconsistent results on qos test.
Below tests are updated:
Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
Sometimes for dnx, few extra ipv6 NS/RA pkt received from VM which get added to counter value & may give inconsistent test results.
Providing room for 2 pkts (COUNTER_MARGIN) incase, extra traffic received.
Below test are updated:
What is the motivation for this PR?
Inconsistent results on qos test runs
How did you do it?
How did you verify/test it?
Executed qos tests & verify the results.
Any platform specific information?
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation