[action] [PR:21143] configlet/test_add_rack.py Add comparison ignore for extra entries added by generic patcher#22162
Merged
vmittal-msft merged 1 commit intosonic-net:202511from Feb 3, 2026
Conversation
…ic-net#21143) What is the motivation for this PR? configlet/test_add_rack.py is failing. How did you do it? Adding extra entries to ignore. These entries seems to be harmless and not used. However it is not understood why it is being added by config apply-patch. Again, ideally this should be fixed in config apply-patch code. This PR is a workaround for the issue since the extra entries are harmless and does not get used. How did you verify/test it? Test no longer fails Any platform specific information? Broadcom platform is used for testing.
Merged
12 tasks
Collaborator
Author
|
Original PR: #21143 |
Collaborator
Author
|
/azp run |
github-actions
bot
requested review from
lolyu,
wangxin and
yutongzhang-microsoft
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azpw run Azure.sonic-mgmt |
Collaborator
Author
|
/AzurePipelines run Azure.sonic-mgmt |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
|
/azpw run Azure.sonic-mgmt |
Collaborator
Author
|
/AzurePipelines run Azure.sonic-mgmt |
|
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s). |
vmittal-msft
approved these changes
Feb 3, 2026
lakshmi-nexthop
pushed a commit
to lakshmi-nexthop/sonic-mgmt
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 11, 2026
…ic-net#21143) (sonic-net#22162) What is the motivation for this PR? configlet/test_add_rack.py is failing. How did you do it? Adding extra entries to ignore. These entries seems to be harmless and not used. However it is not understood why it is being added by config apply-patch. Again, ideally this should be fixed in config apply-patch code. This PR is a workaround for the issue since the extra entries are harmless and does not get used. How did you verify/test it? Test no longer fails Any platform specific information? Broadcom platform is used for testing. Co-authored-by: Justin Wong <51811017+justin-wong-ce@users.noreply.github.com> Signed-off-by: Lakshmi Yarramaneni <lakshmi@nexthop.ai>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description of PR
Summary:
When patching the DUT to remove t0 peers, the test fails the DB comparison due to extra entries being added to APP_DB.
These entries only get added when generic patcher in SONiC (
config apply-patch) is used to remove t0 from the DUT.Ideally this should be fixed in
config apply-patchcode. This PR is a workaround for the issue since the extra entries are harmless and does not get used.Fixes # (issue)
Type of change
Back port request
Approach
What is the motivation for this PR?
configlet/test_add_rack.pyis failing.How did you do it?
Adding extra entries to ignore. These entries seems to be harmless and not used. However it is not understood why it is being added by
config apply-patch.Again, ideally this should be fixed in
config apply-patchcode. This PR is a workaround for the issue since the extra entries are harmless and does not get used.How did you verify/test it?
Test no longer fails
Any platform specific information?
Broadcom platform is used for testing.
Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
Documentation