T6045: Recreate show lldp detail views & improve remote port selection #3590
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
talmakion
requested review from
dmbaturin,
sarthurdev,
zdc,
jestabro,
sever-sever and
c-po
sever-sever
requested changes
Jun 6, 2024
op-mode-definitions/lldp.xml.in
Outdated
| <properties> | ||
| <help>Show extended detail for LLDP neighbors</help> | ||
| </properties> | ||
| <command>/usr/sbin/lldpcli show neighbors detail</command> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should use lldp.py which should show data in the formatted or raw format.
op-mode-definitions/lldp.xml.in
Outdated
| <script>${vyos_completion_dir}/list_interfaces</script> | ||
| </completionHelp> | ||
| </properties> | ||
| <command>/usr/sbin/lldpcli show neighbors ports $5 detail</command> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You should use lldp.py which should show data in the formatted or raw format.
op-mode-definitions/lldp.xml.in
Outdated
| @@ -13,6 +13,12 @@ | |||
| </properties> | |||
| <command>${vyos_op_scripts_dir}/lldp.py show_neighbors</command> | |||
| <children> | |||
| <node name="details"> | |||
|
Apologies - didn't realise wrapping opmode commands in Python was a hard requirement, I added a commit to fix that and the "details" => "detail" change. The existing op_mode/lldp.py code already dealt with detail raw-mode, it just didn't expose this in the XML or handle it properly to output a plain text view. Let me know if this solution still isn't suitable. |
|
Squashed the fixup commits and rebased on current. |
If the remote device has explicitly sent the interface name as the portID, we should use that first as the interface name, before working through the previous priority order. I've brought back LLDP detail views directly calling lldpcli. This can be extended to render a template from op_mode/lldp.py, but lldpcli isn't bad at rendering readable info. Raw mode (including detailed raw) is still accessible for programmatic access.
|
👍 |
|
Looks good: |
sever-sever
approved these changes
Jun 13, 2024
dmbaturin
approved these changes
Jun 13, 2024
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.
Change Summary
If the remote device has explicitly sent the interface name as the portID, we should use that first as the interface name, before working through the previous priority order.
I've brought back LLDP detail views by directly calling lldpcli. This can be extended to render a template from op_mode/lldp.py, but lldpcli isn't bad at rendering readable info. Raw mode (including detailed raw) is still accessible for programmatic access.
Types of changes
Related Task(s)
Related PR(s)
Component(s) name
Proposed changes
Different NOSes and full blown OSes return interface information differently, making a proper universal selection on the "Remote Port" field difficult. It's a similar situation in net-snmp between ifName, ifAlias and ifDescr. However, we do get a type attribute for the PortID returned in LLDP (ref: https://github.com/lldpd/lldpd/blob/master/src/lib/atoms/port.c#L41), so if the remote explicitly says it's the interface name (eg, Cisco & HPE do), that's the interface name.
It will likely need some tweaking and testing, as I'm sure there are still vendors misusing the attribute, but it's a bit closer in the most common use cases from large vendors.
I started re-implementing a detail view in
op_mode/lldp.pyusing some Cisco output samples as a template and calling in with--detailset for those tag branches from the XML. However - it's a decent bit of effort, source JSON is very flexible in structure depending on the devices found, we already have an competent renderer in lldpcli.I can revisit this one to complete the re-rendering in lldp.py if that's the preferred way of doing things, but this should be a working implementation as-is.
How to test
and
Smoketest result
There doesn't appear to be a smoketest for op-mode schema changes.
Checklist: