fix aggregate_all_not_forwarding_viable_test

[nsadhasivam]

[OpenConfigBot]

Pull Request Functional Test Report for #3260 / 99f8453fdaa2c47f9bffc41828cd16e5edece029

Virtual Devices

Device	Test	Test Documentation	Job	Raw Log
Arista cEOS		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All	f5a7a901	Log
Cisco 8000E		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All	a1b7f8d0	Log
Cisco XRd		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All	8eb731da	Log
Juniper ncPTX		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All	124f147a	Log
Nokia SR Linux		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All	75422e90	Log
Openconfig Lemming		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All	e6f8ad21	Log

Hardware Devices

Device	Test	Test Documentation	Raw Log
Arista 7808		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All
Cisco 8808		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All
Juniper PTX10008		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All
Nokia 7250 IXR-10e		RT-5.7: Aggregate Not Viable All

Help

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9958364836

Warning: This coverage report may be inaccurate.

This pull request's base commit is no longer the HEAD commit of its target branch. This means it includes changes from outside the original pull request, including, potentially, unrelated coverage changes.

• For more information on this, see Tracking coverage changes with pull request builds.
• To avoid this issue with future PRs, see these Recommended CI Configurations.
• For a quick fix, rebase this PR at GitHub. Your next report should be accurate.

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage remained the same at 55.5%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9902708584:	0.0%
Covered Lines:	1983
Relevant Lines:	3573

---

💛 - Coveralls

[LimeHat]

Please stop using this deviation for this code snippet, this is not correct as I indicated in https://github.com/openconfig/featureprofiles/pull/2984#issuecomment-2108074887

Regarding this code snippet, I have an open issue #2977. If there's a vendor who needs it, it should be a new deviation. Otherwise, it should be removed altogether as proposed in #3153

cc @dplore @cfernanz

[nsadhasivam]

Please stop using this deviation for this code snippet, this is not correct as I indicated in #2984 (comment)

Regarding this code snippet, I have an open issue #2977. If there's a vendor who needs it, it should be a new deviation. Otherwise, it should be removed altogether as proposed in #3153

cc @dplore @cfernanz

Hi Sergey,

Have added explicit deviations for portspeed and duplex mode, is this what you are looking for?

[LimeHat]

I believe e.AutoNegotiate = ygot.Bool(false) should also be under a deviation if there's a vendor that requires this config.

Potentially, you can group all three things under a single deviation, 100g_fr_explicit_config or something like that.

But again it is not clear if this is required at all. Discussion in #2977 didn't result in any findings in terms of ownership of this config. If there are no vendors who need it (nokia, cisco, and juniper don't, as far as I understand), then we should just remove it as proposed in #3153.

[dplore]

I believe e.AutoNegotiate = ygot.Bool(false) should also be under a deviation if there's a vendor that requires this config.

Potentially, you can group all three things under a single deviation, 100g_fr_explicit_config or something like that.

But again it is not clear if this is required at all. Discussion in #2977 didn't result in any findings in terms of ownership of this config. If there are no vendors who need it (nokia, cisco, and juniper don't, as far as I understand), then we should just remove it as proposed in #3153.

@nsadhasivam we think that this configuration should not be required.

Are you finding that this is mandatory? If yes, for which devices/vendors? In concept, this config should not be needed. If a certain vendor does need it, then it should be a deviation just for that vendor.