Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for m* topos by rgarofano-arista · Pull Request #19872 · sonic-net/sonic-mgmt

rgarofano-arista · 2025-07-28T17:40:36Z

Description of PR

Summary:
Skipping swss event verification in telemetry/test_events.py for m1 and m2 topos as this testing is out of scope for the deployment.

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

Back port request

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment.

How did you do it?

Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2.

How did you verify/test it?

Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change.

Any platform specific information?

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

Documentation

mssonicbld · 2025-07-28T17:40:44Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-07-28T17:40:57Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

tests/telemetry/events/swss_events.py

mssonicbld · 2025-09-11T16:16:44Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-09-11T16:17:00Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

mssonicbld · 2025-09-24T22:29:14Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-09-24T22:29:28Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

StormLiangMS · 2025-09-25T04:43:21Z

hi @rgarofano-arista you may check this file, https://github.com/sonic-net/sonic-mgmt/blob/master/tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/tests_mark_conditions.yaml, we can skip per test case.

rgarofano-arista · 2025-09-25T16:59:19Z

hi @rgarofano-arista you may check this file, https://github.com/sonic-net/sonic-mgmt/blob/master/tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/tests_mark_conditions.yaml, we can skip per test case.

Yes, we can. However, there are only two test cases and this is a large test. By skipping the telemetry/test_events.py::test_events test case, we would be skipping the following events:

bgp_events.py
dhcp-relay_events.py
event_utils.py
eventd_events.py
host_events.py
run_events_test.py
swss_events.py

The change I am proposing only skips swss_events.py which is the only one that uses pfcwd. Perhaps arista could look into creating separate test cases for each of these event types, but I personally am of the opinion that skipping the entire test case is too aggressive the way the test is written today.

StormLiangMS · 2025-10-23T01:51:20Z

hi @rgarofano-arista I see your point. As you commented, I would suggest to "maintain a list of SKUs that don't have pfc support and only try to generate / verify the pfc storm event on SKUs not in the list. " but rather than skip all swss events for m* topos.

An alternative way to approach fixing this test would be to make the pfc storm verification conditional on pfc support. The test is not granular enough to use conditional mark to skip but we can maintain a list of SKUs that don't have pfc support and only try to generate / verify the pfc storm event on SKUs not in the list. Would you like us to proceed with this method?

@Blueve @lizhijianrd any thoughts?

mssonicbld · 2025-10-30T17:06:16Z

/azp run

azure-pipelines · 2025-10-30T17:06:30Z

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

StormLiangMS

LGTM

StormLiangMS · 2025-11-13T12:55:02Z

hi @Blueve do we still need to do the cherrypick for 202505 branch?

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change.

mssonicbld · 2025-11-20T06:04:14Z

Cherry-pick PR to 202505: #21373

What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change.

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: selldinesh <dinesh.sellappan@keysight.com>

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change.

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: Saravanan <saravanan@nexthop.ai>

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: Aharon Malkin <amalkin@nvidia.com>

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: Guy Shemesh <gshemesh@nvidia.com>

r12f · 2026-01-09T23:32:17Z

hi @rgarofano-arista , do you mind to help pick this change to 202412?

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change.

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: YiFan Wang <yifan@nexthop.ai>

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Yarramaneni <lakshmi@nexthop.ai>

PR #19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com>

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change.

…net#22153) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com>

r12f · 2026-02-01T20:32:15Z

hi @rgarofano-arista Ryan, do you mind to help pick this change to 202412?

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: Yael Tzur <ytzur@nvidia.com>

…net#22153) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Yael Tzur <ytzur@nvidia.com>

#22195) PR #19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com>

rgarofano-arista · 2026-02-02T17:54:09Z

PR for 202412: Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft#989

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change.

…net#22153) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com>

…net#22153) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: ayya <anirudh.ayya@nokia.com>

…net#22153) (sonic-net#22195) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Co-authored-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Yarramaneni <lakshmi@nexthop.ai>

…net#22153) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: nnelluri-cisco <nnelluri@cisco.com>

…19872) What is the motivation for this PR? We were seeing failures while trying to verify the pfc storm event on m1 topos. This is because there is no QoS config. After inquiring with Microsoft we decided to skip this part of the test since QoS is not needed for the deployment. How did you do it? Refactored existing skip logic in the test which was being used for mx and m0 topos to include m1 and m2. How did you verify/test it? Ran test with and without change, test was passing with the change. Signed-off-by: Raghavendran Ramanathan <rraghav@cisco.com>

…net#22153) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Raghavendran Ramanathan <rraghav@cisco.com>

…net#22153) PR sonic-net#19872 broke the test skip on Nokia (Marvell) M0/Mx platforms. In this PR, I add them back. In addition, I add Arista-720DT-MGX for skip. What is the motivation for this PR? Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX How did you do it? How did you verify/test it? Verified on Nokia-7215 Mx testbed. Signed-off-by: Zhijian Li <zhijianli@microsoft.com> Signed-off-by: Zhuohui Tan <zhuohui.tan@amd.com>

StormLiangMS reviewed Sep 11, 2025

View reviewed changes

tests/telemetry/events/swss_events.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

StormLiangMS requested a review from lizhijianrd September 18, 2025 04:45

rgarofano-arista force-pushed the skip-swss-m1-topos branch from d7382c2 to f1b53f9 Compare September 24, 2025 22:20

rgarofano-arista added 2 commits October 30, 2025 10:00

Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for m* topos

77e51f2

Skip pfc storm event by hwsku

77aea81

rgarofano-arista force-pushed the skip-swss-m1-topos branch from f1b53f9 to 77aea81 Compare October 30, 2025 17:06

rgarofano-arista requested a review from wangxin as a code owner October 30, 2025 17:06

Blueve approved these changes Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

StormLiangMS approved these changes Nov 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

StormLiangMS merged commit b0fda68 into sonic-net:master Nov 13, 2025
19 checks passed

davidm-arista added the Request for 202505 branch label Nov 19, 2025

StormLiangMS added the Approved for 202505 branch label Nov 20, 2025

mssonicbld added the Created PR to 202505 branch label Nov 20, 2025

mssonicbld mentioned this pull request Nov 20, 2025

[action] [PR:19872] Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for m* topos #21373

Merged

11 tasks

davidm-arista added the Request for msft-202412 Branch label Dec 17, 2025

mssonicbld added the Cherry Pick Conflict_msft-202412 label Dec 17, 2025

lizhijianrd mentioned this pull request Jan 28, 2026

Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX #22153

Merged

12 tasks

mssonicbld mentioned this pull request Jan 30, 2026

[action] [PR:22153] Skip swss events in telemetry/test_events.py for Nokia-7215, Nokia-7215A1 and Arista-720DT-MGX #22195

Merged

12 tasks

Comments

Conversation

rgarofano-arista commented Jul 28, 2025

Description of PR

Type of change

Back port request

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

How did you do it?

How did you verify/test it?

Any platform specific information?

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

Documentation

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Jul 28, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Jul 28, 2025

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Sep 11, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Sep 24, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Sep 24, 2025

Uh oh!

StormLiangMS commented Sep 25, 2025

Uh oh!

rgarofano-arista commented Sep 25, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

StormLiangMS commented Oct 23, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

azure-pipelines bot commented Oct 30, 2025

Uh oh!

StormLiangMS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

StormLiangMS commented Nov 13, 2025

Uh oh!

mssonicbld commented Nov 20, 2025

Uh oh!

r12f commented Jan 9, 2026

Uh oh!

r12f commented Feb 1, 2026

Uh oh!

rgarofano-arista commented Feb 2, 2026

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

6 participants

rgarofano-arista commented Sep 25, 2025 •

edited

Loading