RT-1.27 : static_route_bgp_redistribution_test.go

[cprabha]

Hi,

Adding deviations and also fixing BGP config and corresponding OTG configuration.

[OpenConfigBot]

Pull Request Functional Test Report for #3395 / ddf3c820a3330cb8c44e7962e8428f4832da853f

Virtual Devices

Device	Test	Test Documentation	Job	Raw Log
Arista cEOS		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Cisco 8000E		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Cisco XRd		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Juniper ncPTX		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Nokia SR Linux		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Openconfig Lemming		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution

Hardware Devices

Device	Test	Test Documentation	Raw Log
Arista 7808		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Cisco 8808		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Juniper PTX10008		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution
Nokia 7250 IXR-10e		RT-1.27: Static route to BGP redistribution

Help

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13938779421

Details

• 0 of 13 (0.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 18.124%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
internal/cfgplugins/bgp_policy.go	0	13	0.0%
<!--	Total:	0	13

Totals
Change from base Build 13935938458:	-0.02%
Covered Lines:	2479
Relevant Lines:	13678

---

💛 - Coveralls

[cprabha]

Hi Ram,

I have updated it now, please check.

Thanks, Prabha

Juniper Business Use Only From: Ram @.> Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 4:20 AM To: openconfig/featureprofiles @.> Cc: Prabha Chethan @.>; Author @.> Subject: Re: [openconfig/featureprofiles] RT-1.27 : static_route_bgp_redistribution_test.go (PR #3395)

[External Email. Be cautious of content]

@ram-mac commented on this pull request.

---

In feature/bgp/static_route_bgp_redistribution/otg_tests/static_route_bgp_redistribution_test/static_route_bgp_redistribution_test.gohttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/openconfig/featureprofiles/pull/3395*discussion_r1930438474__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Br8Qvny7RR5C0phrkjA2bvssForyP6DzSBymbz0PNIcWhn0bBDVaEFvnSQ7xE-0lu8rXgSuUDeSDkMb9wtAqzy1c$:

@@ -1577,7 +1668,7 @@ func TestBGPStaticRouteRedistribution(t *testing.T) {

                   name:  "1.27.5 redistribute-ipv4-route-policy-as-prepend",

                   setup: func() { redistributeStaticRoutePolicyWithASN(t, dut, isV4) },

                   validate: func() {

•                          validatePrefixASN(t, ate, isV4, atePort1.Name+".BGP4.peer", "192.168.10.0", []uint32{64512, 65499, 65499, 65499})
  

•                          validatePrefixASN(t, ate, isV4, atePort1.Name+".BGP4.peer", "192.168.10.0", []uint32{65499, 65499, 65499, 64512})
  

the as-path validation checks are as per the README which is '65499 65499 65499 65512' The as-path to be read can also be left to right or right to left. Because, this particular change is failing for another vendor because of change in sequence of the as-path.

How is it as per the RFC?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/openconfig/featureprofiles/pull/3395*discussion_r1930438474__;Iw!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Br8Qvny7RR5C0phrkjA2bvssForyP6DzSBymbz0PNIcWhn0bBDVaEFvnSQ7xE-0lu8rXgSuUDeSDkMb9wtAqzy1c$, or unsubscribehttps://urldefense.com/v3/__https:/github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AHCEB5R6N6YT4TF34K6U3HT2MYP7DAVCNFSM6AAAAABM6SXBBSVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDKNZVGI4DKNBQGY__;!!NEt6yMaO-gk!Br8Qvny7RR5C0phrkjA2bvssForyP6DzSBymbz0PNIcWhn0bBDVaEFvnSQ7xE-0lu8rXgSuUDeSDkMb9wu9W47pP$. You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.@.>>

[ksgireesha]

@ram-mac , can you look into this please

[ram-mac]

Validated the PR and we the test is failing for one of the vendor and the details are updated in the PR