Fix for peer swap issue

CiscoDevNet · Apr 17, 2024 · ef99ac3 · ef99ac3
1 parent 861eea2
commit ef99ac3
Show file tree

Hide file tree

Showing 2 changed files with 22 additions and 8 deletions.
diff --git a/plugins/module_utils/network/dcnm/dcnm_vpc_pair_utils.py b/plugins/module_utils/network/dcnm/dcnm_vpc_pair_utils.py
@@ -873,18 +873,18 @@ def dcnm_vpc_pair_utils_get_all_filtered_vpc_pair_pairs(self):
                     == self.ip_sn.get(elem["peerOneId"], None)
                 )
                 or (
-                    vpc_pair_info["peerOneId"]
-                    == self.ip_sn.get(elem["peerTwoId"], None)
+                    vpc_pair_info["peerTwoId"]
+                    == self.ip_sn.get(elem["peerOneId"], None)
                 )
             ) and (
                 (elem.get("peerTwoId", None) is None)
                 or (
-                    vpc_pair_info["peerTwoId"]
+                    vpc_pair_info["peerOneId"]
                     == self.ip_sn.get(elem["peerTwoId"], None)
                 )
                 or (
                     vpc_pair_info["peerTwoId"]
-                    == self.ip_sn.get(elem["peerOneId"], None)
+                    == self.ip_sn.get(elem["peerTwoId"], None)
                 )
             ):
                 if vpc_pair_info not in vpc_pair_list:

diff --git a/plugins/modules/dcnm_vpc_pair.py b/plugins/modules/dcnm_vpc_pair.py
@@ -641,8 +641,8 @@ def dcnm_vpc_pair_get_diff_deleted(self):
             # Check the peering before deleting. Delete only the peering that is requested for.
             if (
                 (have == [])
-                or (xelem["peerOneId"] != have["peerOneId"])
-                or (xelem["peerTwoId"] != have["peerTwoId"])
+                or (xelem["peerOneId"] != have["peerOneId"] and xelem["peerOneId"] != have["peerTwoId"])
+                or (xelem["peerTwoId"] != have["peerTwoId"] and xelem["peerTwoId"] != have["peerOneId"])
             ):
                 continue
 
@@ -822,12 +822,26 @@ def dcnm_vpc_pair_get_have(self):
             # another peering, say, peer1 and peer3 or peer2 and peer4, then this should be flagged as an error.
 
             if have != [] and (
-                (elem["peerOneId"] != have["peerOneId"])
-                or (elem["peerTwoId"] != have["peerTwoId"])
+                (
+                    elem["peerOneId"] != have["peerOneId"]
+                    and elem["peerOneId"] != have["peerTwoId"]
+                )
+                or (
+                    elem["peerTwoId"] != have["peerTwoId"]
+                    and elem["peerTwoId"] != have["peerOneId"]
+                )
             ):
                 mesg = f"Peering {have['peerOneId']}-{have['peerTwoId']} already exists. Cannot create peering for {elem['peerOneId']}-{elem['peerTwoId']}"
                 self.module.fail_json(msg=mesg)
 
+            # In some cases, specifically on VXLAN fabrics, the peerOneId and peerTwoId will get swapped on NDFC server. The peerOneId and peerTwoId selection
+            # happens based on some internal logic. Users may not be aware of which switch is peer1 and which is peer2.
+            # To handle such cases transparently, we will swap the peerOneId and peerTwoId fields in WANT, to be consistent with 'have'.
+            # Otherwise idempotence cases may fail.
+            if have != []:
+                elem["peerOneId"] = have["peerOneId"]
+                elem["peerTwoId"] = have["peerTwoId"]
+
             if (have != []) and (have not in self.have):
                 self.have.append(have)