Refactor and add route propagation tests - #59
Merged
Conversation
oribon
reviewed
May 8, 2025
|
|
||
| // This test must be the last of the ordered describe as it will remove the underlay | ||
| It("deleting the underlay removes the session with the tor", func() { | ||
| By("deleting the vni removes the session with the host") |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can/should we start with validating the session is there?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can, we already validated as the first it of the spec and this is an ordered spec, but re-validating won't hurt.
| if len(r.Nexthops) == 0 { | ||
| continue | ||
| } | ||
| res[p] = r.Nexthops[0].IP |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
why this approach instead of parsing all nexthops + going over all of them in HaveRoute? (if it has something to do with BestPath/Valid, can we make this more explicit?)
| } `json:"addressFamilyInfo"` | ||
| ConnectionsDropped int `json:"connectionsDropped"` | ||
| ConnectionsDropped int `json:"connectionsDropped"` | ||
| NoSuchNeighbor bool `json:"bgpNoSuchNeighbor"` |
|
|
||
| It("receives type 5 routes from the fabric", func() { | ||
| Contains := true | ||
| checkRouteForLeaf := func(leaf infra.Leaf, vni v1alpha1.VNI, mustContain bool, prefixes []string) { |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can/should this be From instead of For?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't mind changing it. It's either "check the routes for that leaf" or check the routes coming from that leaf.
| By("announcing type 5 routes on VNI 100 from leafA") | ||
| changeLeafPrefixes(infra.LeafAConfig, leafAVRFRedPrefixes, emptyPrefixes) | ||
| checkRouteForLeaf(infra.LeafAConfig, vniRed, Contains, leafAVRFRedPrefixes) | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we have a !Contains for blue here?
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we are not advertising those routes yet, so what it would be testing? Do you have a particular reason for wanting it?
| changeLeafPrefixes(infra.LeafBConfig, leafBVRFRedPrefixes, leafBVRFBluePrefixes) | ||
| checkRouteForLeaf(infra.LeafBConfig, vniRed, Contains, leafBVRFRedPrefixes) | ||
| checkRouteForLeaf(infra.LeafBConfig, vniBlue, Contains, leafBVRFBluePrefixes) | ||
|
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can we keep checking leafA prefixes here?
| changeLeafPrefixes(infra.LeafAConfig, emptyPrefixes, leafAVRFBluePrefixes) | ||
| checkRouteForLeaf(infra.LeafAConfig, vniRed, !Contains, leafAVRFRedPrefixes) | ||
| checkRouteForLeaf(infra.LeafAConfig, vniBlue, Contains, leafAVRFBluePrefixes) | ||
|
|
| checkRouteForLeaf(infra.LeafAConfig, vniBlue, Contains, leafAVRFBluePrefixes) | ||
|
|
||
| By("removing a route from leafA on vni 200") | ||
| changeLeafPrefixes(infra.LeafAConfig, emptyPrefixes, emptyPrefixes) |
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am going to add the 4 checks in every step, feels less error prone / easier to understand.
Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>
fedepaol
force-pushed
the
moartestsstep2
branch
6 times, most recently
from
May 10, 2025 01:33
ff33085 to
2a47b29
Compare
It makes sense to have a more broad session validation as a separate file. Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>
We add functions that check if a given route is received via BGP or EVPN. - Add logic to fetch the output from FRR - Add the parsing functions - Add utility functions to validate if a given route is present in either EPVN routes or BGP routes Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>
We refresh the existing type5 routes tests with a more comprehensive one where we add and delete routes. Also, we add a test that validates that type5 routes are propagated to the host via BGP. Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>
Adding the reporter library to collect crds and pod logs, and inspecting the various frr instances both in frr-k8s, in the perouter and on the clab leaves. Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>
We are getting warnings about MGMTD and WATCHFRR, setting the global one. Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Federico Paolinelli <fpaoline@redhat.com>
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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.
Here we add more test checking the route propagation and we refactor the whole machinery a bit.