| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
While here, also make "VPN SAFI clear" test wait for clear result
(tests/topotests/bgp_rfapi_basic_sanity{,_config2})
Original RFAPI code relied on the frr timer system to remember
various allocations that were supposed to be freed at future times
rather than manage a parallel database. However, if bgpd is terminated
before the times expire, those pending allocations are marked as
memory leaks, even though they wouldn't be leaks under normal operation.
This change adds some hash tables to track these outstanding
allocations that are associated with pending timers, and uses
those tables to free the allocations when bgpd exits.
Signed-off-by: G. Paul Ziemba <paulz@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Christian Hopps <chopps@labn.net>
|
|
the topolog importation folder must be precised. otherwise following
error message appears:
root@dut-vm:~/topotests/bgp_flowspec# python3 test_bgp_flowspec_topo.py
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "test_bgp_flowspec_topo.py", line 96, in <module>
from lib.lutil import lUtil
File "/root/topotests/bgp_flowspec/../lib/lutil.py", line 25, in <module>
from topolog import logger
ImportError: No module named 'topolog'
root@dut-vm:~/topotests/bgp_flowspec#
The same error occurs with lutil and bgprib which are 2 libraries
located under lib/ folder. Some precisions are added too.
PR=71290
Signed-off-by: Philippe Guibert <philippe.guibert@6wind.com>
|
|
Mostly ' => ", whitespace changes.
Using https://github.com/psf/black
Signed-off-by: reformat <reformat@nobody.nobody>
|
|
The FRR bgp topotests are employing a luCommand that looks for bgp peering
to be up on the first router with a `wait` sub-command. Please note that
a variety of tests are using this. This wait command has a variety of time
outs being used `30`, `90`, and `300`. BGP peering with how we compile
it have very long timers and 30( and possibly 90) seconds is clearly not enough when
we are waiting, given the nature of our test beds. Additionally we were employing a model
where once the first summary command succeeded we automatically assumed that all
subsuquent summary commands( to look at other routers ) would not need to
possibly wait. This is insufficient in that if I have multiple peerings in
multiple vrf's there is no guarantee that one router peers being up will
be sufficient information to know that all the other routers peers are up.
Modify the test cases to be a bit more conformant about this and to
allow peer checks to actually wait a reasonable amount of time for
all peers to have a chance to come up.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpdc@cumulusnetworks.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
