Add a new module to manage Virtual Port Channel Interfaces in Fabric Resource Policies Template. (DCNE-53) #551
+1,015
−0
Conversation
This file contains 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
gmicol
added
enhancement
gmicol
force-pushed
the
mso_vpc_interface
branch
from
4f77f85 to
d5cfb35
Compare
gmicol
requested review from
lhercot,
shrsr,
akinross,
anvitha-jain,
sajagana and
samiib
gmicol
force-pushed
the
mso_vpc_interface
branch
from
d5cfb35 to
bca2eee
Compare
akinross
requested changes
Oct 29, 2024
akinross
reviewed
Oct 29, 2024
akinross
requested changes
Oct 30, 2024
akinross
reviewed
Oct 30, 2024
shrsr
requested changes
Oct 31, 2024
gmicol
force-pushed
the
mso_vpc_interface
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ad06fce to
e953212
Compare
gmicol
force-pushed
the
mso_vpc_interface
branch
from
e953212 to
0e6144b
Compare
samiib
requested changes
Nov 8, 2024
tests/integration/targets/ndo_virtual_port_channel_interface/tasks/main.yml
Show resolved
Hide resolved
gmicol
force-pushed
the
mso_vpc_interface
branch
from
8dbc55e to
af7cd75
Compare
gmicol
requested review from
samiib,
sajagana,
anvitha-jain,
akinross and
shrsr
shrsr
requested changes
Dec 18, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm curious as to what would happen in this scenario where node_1 is not mentioned in the second config and interfaces_1 is changed to 1/2? Likely node_1 would be sent in the payload as null and NDO would complain in the response? If yes, then we need to modify the append_update_ops_data() a little...
- name: Create a new virtual port channel interface
cisco.mso.ndo_virtual_port_channel_interface:
<<: *mso_info
template: ansible_fabric_resource_template
virtual_port_channel_interface: ansible_virtual_port_channel_interface
description: Ansible Virtual Port Channel test
node_1: 101
node_2: 102
interfaces_1: 1/1
interfaces_2: 1/1
interface_policy_group:
name: ansible_test_interface_policy_group_port_channel
template: ansible_fabric_policy_template
interface_descriptions:
- node: 101
interface_id: 1/1
description: first Ansible interface test for first node
- node: 102
interface_id: 1/1
description: first Ansible interface test for second node
state: present
- name: Create a new virtual port channel interface with change in interfaces
cisco.mso.ndo_virtual_port_channel_interface:
<<: *mso_info
template: ansible_fabric_resource_template
virtual_port_channel_interface: ansible_virtual_port_channel_interface
description: Ansible Virtual Port Channel test
node_2: 102
interfaces_1: 1/2
interfaces_2: 1/1
interface_policy_group:
name: ansible_test_interface_policy_group_port_channel
template: ansible_fabric_policy_template
interface_descriptions:
- node: 101
interface_id: 1/1
description: first Ansible interface test for first node
- node: 102
interface_id: 1/1
description: first Ansible interface test for second node
state: present
…r possible empty strings attributes.
…riptions for payload data.
…t_channel_interfaces.
…rtual_port_channel_interface.py module to be consistent with future modules.
…t_channel_interface module. enhance format_interface_descriptions function to format range of interface IDs.
…ort_channel_interface module. Modify Documentation and Example sections.
…rface module when handling null value.
gmicol
force-pushed
the
mso_vpc_interface
branch
from
af7cd75 to
5ccdfdf
Compare
…s being updated or created for ndo_virtual_port_channel_interface module.
gmicol
force-pushed
the
mso_vpc_interface
branch
from
5ccdfdf to
94aba9f
Compare
sajagana
requested changes
Dec 23, 2024
| interface_policy_group_uuid = fabric_policy_template.get_interface_policy_group_uuid(interface_policy_group.get("name")) | ||
|
|
||
| if mso.existing: | ||
| mso_values = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Use dict() instead of {}.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should we in the case we have tuples as keys? I think it is better in all aspect to use {} format instead of using the dict() class for this case specifically because we would have to do something like this with the dict class:
my_dict_test = dict([((1, 2), "value1"), ((3, 4), "value2")])which is definitely less readable and less optimal than {} format.
tests/integration/targets/ndo_virtual_port_channel_interface/tasks/main.yml
Show resolved
Hide resolved
anvitha-jain
requested changes
Jan 9, 2025
tests/integration/targets/ndo_virtual_port_channel_interface/tasks/main.yml
Show resolved
Hide resolved
…ction to be a minimum requirements creation task in test file for ndo_virtual_port_channel_interface.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
resolves #467
New Modules Added: