route_check: Skip route checks if bgp feature is not enabled

[anamehra]

If bgp is not enabled, get_frr_routes() gets empty list and route check fails and throws a traceback. Adding check to to skip route checks bgp feature is disabled. On the Chassis supervisor, bgp may be disabled.

Signed-off-by: Anand Mehra anamehra@cisco.com

What I did

Fixes sonic-net/sonic-buildimage#17400

Fixed the route_check.py traceback error on Chassis Supervisor.

How I did it

Added feature bgp check before performing frr route check. This prevents failure when bgp is not enabled on Supervisor.

How to verify it

run route_check.py on Supervisor. No traceback should be observed.

Previous command output (if the output of a command-line utility has changed)

root@sonic:/home/cisco# route_check.py 
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "/usr/local/bin/route_check.py", line 822, in <module>
    sys.exit(main()[0])
  File "/usr/local/bin/route_check.py", line 809, in main
    ret, res= check_routes()
  File "/usr/local/bin/route_check.py", line 757, in check_routes
    rt_frr_miss = check_frr_pending_routes()
  File "/usr/local/bin/route_check.py", line 547, in check_frr_pending_routes
    frr_routes = get_frr_routes()
  File "/usr/local/bin/route_check.py", line 343, in get_frr_routes
    output = subprocess.check_output('show ip route json', shell=True)
  File "/usr/lib/python3.9/subprocess.py", line 424, in check_output
    return run(*popenargs, stdout=PIPE, timeout=timeout, check=True,
  File "/usr/lib/python3.9/subprocess.py", line 528, in run
    raise CalledProcessError(retcode, process.args,
subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command 'show ip route json' returned non-zero exit status 1.

New command output (if the output of a command-line utility has changed)

root@sonic:/home/cisco# route_check.py 
root@sonic:/home/cisco# 

Which release branch to backport (provide reason below if selected)

• 202305

[anamehra]

Hi @abdosi , @gechiang , @rlhui , this PR is ready for review. Needed for 202305. Thanks

[rlhui]

only an issue from 202305 up

[deepak-singhal0408]

@anamehra can you resolve the conflicts? The files have been modified for multi-asic support...

[deepak-singhal0408]

KeyError: 'namespace-list'

Stack trace
self = <tests.route_check_test.TestRouteCheck object at 0x7f04c0d0bf10>
mock_dbs = None, test_num = '21'

@pytest.mark.parametrize("test_num", TEST_DATA.keys())
def test_route_check(self, mock_dbs, test_num):
    logger.debug("test_route_check: test_num={}".format(test_num))
    self.init()
    ret = 0
    ct_data = TEST_DATA[test_num]
    set_test_case_data(ct_data)

  self.run_test(ct_data)

tests/route_check_test.py:240:

---

self = <tests.route_check_test.TestRouteCheck object at 0x7f04c0d0bf10>
ct_data = {'Description': 'basic route check, good one, bgp disabled', 'args': 'route_check -m INFO -i 1000', 'pre-value': {0: {...":"oid:0x3000000000023"}': {}}}, 4: {'DEVICE_METADATA': {'localhost': {}}, 'FEATURE': {'bgp': {'state': 'disabled'}}}}}

def run_test(self, ct_data):
    with patch('sys.argv', ct_data[ARGS].split()), \

      patch('sonic_py_common.multi_asic.get_namespace_list', return_value= ct_data[NAMESPACE]), \

        patch('sonic_py_common.multi_asic.is_multi_asic', return_value= ct_data[MULTI_ASIC]), \
        patch('route_check.subprocess.check_output', side_effect=lambda *args, **kwargs: self.mock_check_output(ct_data, *args, **kwargs)), \
        patch('route_check.mitigate_installed_not_offloaded_frr_routes', side_effect=lambda *args, **kwargs: None), \
        patch('route_check.load_db_config', side_effect=lambda: init_db_conns(ct_data[NAMESPACE])):

E KeyError: 'namespace-list'

tests/route_check_test.py:244: KeyError

[anamehra]

Hi @deepak-singhal0408 , I am checking on the errors after the conflict merge.

[anamehra]

@deepak-singhal0408 , please review. Thanks!

[abdosi]

@anamehra : can we skip complete script execution if bgp feature is disable and not tied with only FRR related checks.

Reason for this request in future someone can add more checks based on FRR so possible we will hit similar issue again. Skipping at top level will help in such cases

[abdosi]

as per above comment.

[abdosi]

@anamehra please create PR for 202305.

[anamehra]

@anamehra please create PR for 202305.

Thanks for merging this @abdosi ! 202305 needs #3077. I think that is also the reason for cherry pick conflict.
Please also tag both these PRs for 202311
Thanks

[StormLiangMS]

@anamehra cherry pick conflict, pls resubmit separate PR to 202305.

[anamehra]

@anamehra cherry pick conflict, pls resubmit separate PR to 202305.

Sure, will do after #3077 gets merged in 202305. Thanks

[yxieca]

@anamehra @deepak-singhal0408 #3075 and #3077 have blocked sonic-utilities repo sub-module advance in sonic-buildimage repo.

[deepak-singhal0408]

Hi @anamehra , could you resubmit this PR? It was reverted earlier.. Thanks!

[saksarav-nokia]

@anamehra , is this resubmitted?

[deepak-singhal0408]

Hi @anamehra , we are waiting on this PR.. if you are busy, please let me know, we can create this PR.. Thanks..

• @saksarav-nokia

[anamehra]

Hi @anamehra , we are waiting on this PR.. if you are busy, please let me know, we can create this PR.. Thanks..

• @saksarav-nokia

#3270
Please review.