Skip to content

Fixing a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5#24605

Merged
mramezani95 merged 1 commit into
sonic-net:masterfrom
mramezani95:mramezani/test_trimming_counters_fix
May 14, 2026
Merged

Fixing a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5#24605
mramezani95 merged 1 commit into
sonic-net:masterfrom
mramezani95:mramezani/test_trimming_counters_fix

Conversation

@mramezani95

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Description of PR

This PR fixes a test failure in test_trimming_counters seen on TH5 devices.

Summary:
Microsoft ADO ID: 37947965
Fixed a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5.

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
  • New Test case
    • Skipped for non-supported platforms
  • Test case improvement

Back port request

  • 202205
  • 202305
  • 202311
  • 202405
  • 202411
  • 202505
  • 202511

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

The last step of test_trimming_counters is to block the trim queue and verify trim drop counters. The test does not expect to receive any trimmed packets since the trim queue is blocked. However, TH5 switches cannot completely block egress queues. So the test fails because trimmed packets leak out from the trim queue at a very low rate.

How did you do it?

For TH5 switches, we skip checking that no trimmed packet is captured on the egress port.

How did you verify/test it?

Ran the test on a TH5 device after changes:

packet_trimming/test_packet_trimming_symmetric.py::TestPacketTrimmingSymmetric::test_trimming_counters PASSED                                         [100%]

Any platform specific information?

The behavior of the test is only changed for TH5.

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

N/A

Documentation

N/A

Signed-off-by: Mahdi Ramezani <mramezani@microsoft.com>
@mramezani95
mramezani95 requested review from r12f and sdszhang May 13, 2026 17:59
@mramezani95 mramezani95 added the Request for 202511 branch Request to backport a change to 202511 branch label May 13, 2026
@mssonicbld

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

/azp run

@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@mramezani95
mramezani95 merged commit 275d4ac into sonic-net:master May 14, 2026
22 checks passed
@mssonicbld

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Cherry-pick PR to msft-202412: Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft#1197

@mssonicbld

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Cherry-pick PR to 202511: #24764

@mssonicbld

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@mramezani95 cherry pick PR didn't pass PR checker after retry. Please help check! Thanks.
Azure/sonic-mgmt.msft#1197

---Powered by SONiC BuildBot

selldinesh pushed a commit to selldinesh/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jun 11, 2026
…24605)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit
easier:
-->
### Description of PR
<!--
- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
- Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should
reviewer start? background context?
- List any dependencies that are required for this change.
-->
This PR fixes a test failure in `test_trimming_counters` seen on TH5
devices.

Summary:
Microsoft ADO ID: 37947965
Fixed a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5.

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
    - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [x] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [ ] 202405
- [ ] 202411
- [ ] 202505
- [x] 202511

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?
The last step of `test_trimming_counters` is to block the trim queue and
verify trim drop counters. The test does not expect to receive any
trimmed packets since the trim queue is blocked. However, TH5 switches
cannot completely block egress queues. So the test fails because trimmed
packets leak out from the trim queue at a very low rate.

#### How did you do it?
For TH5 switches, we skip checking that no trimmed packet is captured on
the egress port.

#### How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on a TH5 device after changes:
```
packet_trimming/test_packet_trimming_symmetric.py::TestPacketTrimmingSymmetric::test_trimming_counters PASSED                                         [100%]
```

#### Any platform specific information?
The behavior of the test is only changed for TH5.

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
N/A

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
N/A

Signed-off-by: Mahdi Ramezani <mramezani@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: selldinesh <dinesh.sellappan@keysight.com>
selldinesh pushed a commit to selldinesh/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jun 25, 2026
…24605)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit
easier:
-->
### Description of PR
<!--
- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
- Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should
reviewer start? background context?
- List any dependencies that are required for this change.
-->
This PR fixes a test failure in `test_trimming_counters` seen on TH5
devices.

Summary:
Microsoft ADO ID: 37947965
Fixed a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5.

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
    - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [x] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [ ] 202405
- [ ] 202411
- [ ] 202505
- [x] 202511

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?
The last step of `test_trimming_counters` is to block the trim queue and
verify trim drop counters. The test does not expect to receive any
trimmed packets since the trim queue is blocked. However, TH5 switches
cannot completely block egress queues. So the test fails because trimmed
packets leak out from the trim queue at a very low rate.

#### How did you do it?
For TH5 switches, we skip checking that no trimmed packet is captured on
the egress port.

#### How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on a TH5 device after changes:
```
packet_trimming/test_packet_trimming_symmetric.py::TestPacketTrimmingSymmetric::test_trimming_counters PASSED                                         [100%]
```

#### Any platform specific information?
The behavior of the test is only changed for TH5.

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
N/A

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
N/A

Signed-off-by: Mahdi Ramezani <mramezani@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: selldinesh <dinesh.sellappan@keysight.com>
selldinesh pushed a commit to selldinesh/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2026
…24605)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit
easier:
-->
### Description of PR
<!--
- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
- Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should
reviewer start? background context?
- List any dependencies that are required for this change.
-->
This PR fixes a test failure in `test_trimming_counters` seen on TH5
devices.

Summary:
Microsoft ADO ID: 37947965
Fixed a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5.

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
    - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [x] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [ ] 202405
- [ ] 202411
- [ ] 202505
- [x] 202511

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?
The last step of `test_trimming_counters` is to block the trim queue and
verify trim drop counters. The test does not expect to receive any
trimmed packets since the trim queue is blocked. However, TH5 switches
cannot completely block egress queues. So the test fails because trimmed
packets leak out from the trim queue at a very low rate.

#### How did you do it?
For TH5 switches, we skip checking that no trimmed packet is captured on
the egress port.

#### How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on a TH5 device after changes:
```
packet_trimming/test_packet_trimming_symmetric.py::TestPacketTrimmingSymmetric::test_trimming_counters PASSED                                         [100%]
```

#### Any platform specific information?
The behavior of the test is only changed for TH5.

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
N/A

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
N/A

Signed-off-by: Mahdi Ramezani <mramezani@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: selldinesh <dinesh.sellappan@keysight.com>
ssithaia-ebay pushed a commit to ssithaia-ebay/sflow-yang-sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jul 21, 2026
…24605)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit
easier:
-->
### Description of PR
<!--
- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
- Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should
reviewer start? background context?
- List any dependencies that are required for this change.
-->
This PR fixes a test failure in `test_trimming_counters` seen on TH5
devices.

Summary:
Microsoft ADO ID: 37947965
Fixed a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5.

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
    - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [x] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [ ] 202405
- [ ] 202411
- [ ] 202505
- [x] 202511

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?
The last step of `test_trimming_counters` is to block the trim queue and
verify trim drop counters. The test does not expect to receive any
trimmed packets since the trim queue is blocked. However, TH5 switches
cannot completely block egress queues. So the test fails because trimmed
packets leak out from the trim queue at a very low rate.

#### How did you do it?
For TH5 switches, we skip checking that no trimmed packet is captured on
the egress port.

#### How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on a TH5 device after changes:
```
packet_trimming/test_packet_trimming_symmetric.py::TestPacketTrimmingSymmetric::test_trimming_counters PASSED                                         [100%]
```

#### Any platform specific information?
The behavior of the test is only changed for TH5.

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
N/A

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
N/A

Signed-off-by: Mahdi Ramezani <mramezani@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: ssithaia-ebay <ssithaian@ebay.com>
ytzur1 pushed a commit to ytzur1/sonic-mgmt that referenced this pull request Jul 22, 2026
…24605)

<!--
Please make sure you've read and understood our contributing guidelines;
https://github.com/sonic-net/SONiC/blob/gh-pages/CONTRIBUTING.md

Please provide following information to help code review process a bit
easier:
-->
### Description of PR
<!--
- Please include a summary of the change and which issue is fixed.
- Please also include relevant motivation and context. Where should
reviewer start? background context?
- List any dependencies that are required for this change.
-->
This PR fixes a test failure in `test_trimming_counters` seen on TH5
devices.

Summary:
Microsoft ADO ID: 37947965
Fixed a packet trimming counter test failure seen on TH5.

### Type of change

<!--
- Fill x for your type of change.
- e.g.
- [x] Bug fix
-->

- [ ] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
    - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [x] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [ ] 202405
- [ ] 202411
- [ ] 202505
- [x] 202511

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?
The last step of `test_trimming_counters` is to block the trim queue and
verify trim drop counters. The test does not expect to receive any
trimmed packets since the trim queue is blocked. However, TH5 switches
cannot completely block egress queues. So the test fails because trimmed
packets leak out from the trim queue at a very low rate.

#### How did you do it?
For TH5 switches, we skip checking that no trimmed packet is captured on
the egress port.

#### How did you verify/test it?
Ran the test on a TH5 device after changes:
```
packet_trimming/test_packet_trimming_symmetric.py::TestPacketTrimmingSymmetric::test_trimming_counters PASSED                                         [100%]
```

#### Any platform specific information?
The behavior of the test is only changed for TH5.

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
N/A

### Documentation
<!--
(If it's a new feature, new test case)
Did you update documentation/Wiki relevant to your implementation?
Link to the wiki page?
-->
N/A

Signed-off-by: Mahdi Ramezani <mramezani@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: Yael Tzur <ytzur@nvidia.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants