IOSXR: ShowL2VPNBridgeDomainDetail parser bug

[agandl046]

For IOSXR, this expected output is wrong: https://github.com/CiscoTestAutomation/genieparser/blob/master/src/genie/libs/parser/iosxr/tests/ShowL2vpnBridgeDomainDetail/cli/equal/golden7_expected.py

It is hiding a bug in the ShowL2VPNBridgeDomainDetail parser: https://github.com/CiscoTestAutomation/genieparser/blob/master/src/genie/libs/parser/iosxr/show_l2vpn.py#L1258

In golden7_expected.py starting with Bridge group B2C, the vfi section is incorrect. For domain SEG180, it includes the Access PW for domain SEG242. For domain SEG242, it includes the Access PW for domain SEG244. This pattern continues for the other groups and domains.

[sumitsehgal123]

Hi . Thanks for reaching out piestack support team, I will be looking at your ticket and reviewing it . Recommend is to always use the latest pyats version (i.e. Current released version 23.7)

[sumitsehgal123]

Hi , I will be working on your ticket. I'll get back to you once I have any update on it.

[iamsatyanarayan]

Hi @agandl046 I am seeing the proper value in this line. Kindly let me know what is the exact issue you are facing.

[agandl046]

@iamsatyanarayan That link to the line didn't work for me, but the issue is in the expected.py, not the output.txt.

In this section from the golden7_output.txt, group BC2 domain SEG180 should have a PW with neighbor value 10.11.44.8. But nowhere in the golden7_expected.py is there 10.11.44.8. Additionally, SEG180 should only have 10.11.44.92 as a neighbor under vfi but it also has 10.11.44.12 as a neighbor. This neighbor comes from the Access PW under SEG242, which can be confirmed since the pw_id for 10.11.44.12 in golden7_expected.py is 242 instead of 180.

What appears to be happening in the parser is that the first time a PW under List of Access PWs is encountered, it is ignored and then the second time a PW under List of Access PWs is encountered, it is added as a neighbor under vfi to the previous group/domain (instead of the current). If you look at every neighbor IP under List of Access PWs, you will see that it is under the wrong group and/or domain.

Output section:

Bridge group: B2C, bridge-domain: SEG180, id: 138, state: up, ShgId: 0, MSTi: 0
  ... (truncated)
  ACs: 2 (2 up), VFIs: 1, PWs: 2 (1 up), PBBs: 0 (0 up), VNIs: 0 (0 up)
  List of ACs:
  ... (truncated)
  List of Access PWs:
    PW: neighbor 10.11.44.8, PW ID 180, state is standby ( all ready )
      ... (truncated)
      Storm Control: bridge-domain policer
  List of VFIs:
    VFI SEG180 (up)
      PW: neighbor 10.11.44.92, PW ID 99180, state is up ( established )
      ... (truncated)
      VFI Statistics:
        drops: illegal VLAN 0, illegal length 0
  List of Access VFIs:

Bridge group: B2C, bridge-domain: SEG242, id: 252, state: up, ShgId: 0, MSTi: 0
  ... (truncated)
  List of Access PWs:
    PW: neighbor 10.11.44.12, PW ID 242, state is standby ( all ready )
      ... (truncated)
      Storm Control: bridge-domain policer
  List of VFIs:
    VFI SEG242 (up)
      PW: neighbor 10.11.44.92, PW ID 99242, state is up ( established )
      ... (truncated)
  List of Access VFIs:

Expected Section:

... (truncated)
"B2C": {
    "bridge_domain": {
        "SEG180": {
            "state": "up",
            "id": 138,
            ... (truncated)
            "vfi": {
                "num_vfi": 1, <<< SAYS 1, BUT THERE ARE 2
                "SEG180": {
                    "state": "up",
                    "neighbor": {
                        "10.11.44.92": {
                            "pw_id": {
                                "99180": {
                                    ... (truncated)
                                 }
                            }
                        },
                        "10.11.44.12": { <<< SHOULD ACCESS PW BE UNDER SEG242
                            "pw_id": {
                                "242": {
                                    ...  (truncated)
                              }
                        },

[iamsatyanarayan]

Hi @agandl046 as you mentioned in the issue in expected output_7.py:- "10.11.44.12": SHOULD ACCESS PW BE UNDER SEG242 that I got it but secondly you mentioned "num_vfi": 1, <<< SAYS 1, BUT THERE ARE 2 that i didn't get it properly can you please explain ?

[agandl046]

@iamsatyanarayan For context, I am not a network engineer so I may use some terms incorrectly or misunderstand the reasoning behind the schema structure.

I agree that the CLI output confirms that there should be 1 VFI. My comment was meant to point out that 10.11.44.12 was under the vfi section instead of under the pw section. Which is where I assume the Access PWs should go. This part of the schema, for reference.

[iamsatyanarayan]

Hi @agandl046 I am looking into this. I will inform you once I have any update regarding this issue.

[kameswararaot]

Hi @agandl046 I am looking into this. I will inform you once I have any update regarding this issue.

[kameswararaot]

Hi @agandl046,

I am checking this issue with my team. I will get back to you.

[kameswararaot]

Hi @agandl046,

Still I am working on this issue with my team. I will get back to you.

[SohanTirpude]

Hello @agandl046,

For this issue we merged the PR, so the fix will be available in upcoming pyATS version. Hence, I am closing this issue. If you are still seeing this issue with newer pyATS version, then kindly let me know. If you have any other issues, kindly open a new ticket.

Thank you.