Closed italovalcy closed 1 month ago
Totals | |
---|---|
Change from base Build 10324380079: | 0.03% |
Covered Lines: | 1349 |
Relevant Lines: | 1656 |
@italovalcy Actually, on second thoughts, there are some *_v2.json
files under src/sdx_datamodel/data/topologies
: ampath_v2.json
, sax_v2.json
, and zaoxi_v2.json
. Going forward, I believe those are the ones that we should be using, because they are the ones that are supposed to conform to datamodel v2 spec. Would you be able to check those for inconsistencies? I tried using them in pce tests but could not make much progress. Perhaps you will have better ideas.
I am also unsure if we should keep the old topology files around. They are likely to cause confusion.
@italovalcy Actually, on second thoughts, there are some
*_v2.json
files undersrc/sdx_datamodel/data/topologies
:ampath_v2.json
,sax_v2.json
, andzaoxi_v2.json
. Going forward, I believe those are the ones that we should be using, because they are the ones that are supposed to conform to datamodel v2 spec. Would you be able to check those for inconsistencies? I tried using them in pce tests but could not make much progress. Perhaps you will have better ideas.I am also unsure if we should keep the old topology files around. They are likely to cause confusion.
Good point, @sajith ! I've opened issue https://github.com/atlanticwave-sdx/datamodel/issues/142 for us to handle that. Thanks for your review!
Related to https://github.com/atlanticwave-sdx/pce/issues/200
Description of the change
This pull request fix a few inconsistencies on the example topologies (
amlight.json
,sax.json
andsdx.json
). Most of the inconsistencies consist of:amlight
->amlight.net
-- correct in some places, wrong in others)node": "urn:sdx:port:sax:B1",
->"node": "urn:sdx:node:sax:B1"
)"node": "A1:2"
->"node": "urn:sdx:node:zaoxi:A1",
)Because of those errors, the breakdowns failed to be computed, as well as VLAN reservations and other cases.
Additionally, I've also added backward compatibility for Port.vlan_range on Topology v1: if the
vlan_range
is not defined on the port butlabel_range
is, PortHandler will leverage the former.