| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
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>
|
|
These tests at this point only work for FRR. Let's cut to the chase
and admit it.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>`
|
|
Modify bgpd.conf in all easily accessible topotests to use 3 10
as their timers du jour. This will allow the tests to converge
faster.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@nvidia.com>
|
|
Decrease run time from ~70 seconds to ~41 seconds by
reducing hello/dead interval timers in ospf
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
|
|
The `log monitor' command is a no-op and actually
outputs a `this doesn't do anything` warning. Let's remove
this cli line from our tests as that don't do anything and
people will look at these configs for guidance.
Signed-off-by: Donald Sharp <sharpd@cumulusnetworks.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas.abraitis@gmail.com>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Donatas Abraitis <donatas.abraitis@gmail.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>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
|
Signed-off-by: Lou Berger <lberger@labn.net>
|
