Test case for static routes (v4+v6)

[manuel-domke]

hi,

I need test cases for static ipv4/ipv6 routes for my changes made in napalm-iosxr.

[dbarrosop]

Ok, adding these tests basically break CIs for other drivers so we will have to be careful with this one.

Drivers we have to fix:

1. EOS
2. IOSXR
3. Junos
4. Panos

Shouldn't be terrible.

However, I was wondering if we should just remove the "protocol" from test_get_route_to so we can control with the test cases (default and the rest) the data we get and parse instead.

@manuel-domke @mirceaulinic any thoughts?

[manuel-domke]

I was wondering on how many of the other implementations I'll break. Glad its just three :) And - yes. Lets remove the protocol for "default" test cases.

[dbarrosop]

See: https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-base/issues/238

[mirceaulinic]

I need to think more about it, but for the moment I'm not sure I can agree with this: do we want to have more bespoken methods and remove an useful functionality just for the sake of testing an argument? If the protocol is too problematic, we could just ignore it, as we do for other methods, e.g.: get_bgp_neighbors_detail or others having optional arguments. What would we do it we'd need to test the argument neighbor for get_bgp_neighbors_detail? Would we implement get_bgp_neighbors_detail_neighbor? Same for ping: why not just implement ping_vrf, ping_ttl etc. methods, to be easier testing? :)

[dbarrosop]

Response here: https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-base/issues/238#issuecomment-296098915