adding cisco and juniper support#5572
Conversation
Summary of ChangesHello, I'm Gemini Code Assist1! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed! This pull request enhances the transceiver test framework by introducing support for Cisco and Juniper hardware. It refactors existing configuration and validation logic to accommodate vendor-specific behaviors, such as different naming conventions for breakout ports and distinct operational mode requirements. These changes improve the robustness and flexibility of the test suite across a wider range of network devices. Highlights
Using Gemini Code AssistThe full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips. Invoking Gemini You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either
Customization To customize the Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a Limitations & Feedback Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counterproductive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for GitHub and other Google products, sign up here. Footnotes
|
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces support for new transceiver part numbers and implements vendor-specific configuration and telemetry validation logic, particularly for Cisco, Juniper, Nokia, Arista, and Ciena devices. Key changes include refactoring interface and hardware port lookup helpers, batched interface state toggling, and updated validation thresholds for optical, OTN, and temperature sensor components. Feedback suggests refactoring the repeated Ciena manufacturer name checks into a reusable helper function to improve maintainability.
Important
The consumer version of Gemini Code Assist on GitHub is being sunset. Starting June 18, 2026, new organization installations will be blocked, and all code review activity will officially cease on July 17, 2026.
For more details on the timeline and next steps, please review the Help Documentation.
| return OperationalModeList{1, 3} // 800G : 1 (8x112G), 400G : 3 (4x112G) | ||
| case ondatra.PMD800GBASEZRP: | ||
| if dut.Vendor() == ondatra.CISCO { | ||
| // Ciena 800ZRP is not backward compatible with 400G. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The check for the 'CIENA' manufacturer name is repeated in multiple places (lines 190, 196, and 306). To improve maintainability and facilitate future optimizations, refactor this repeated telemetry validation logic into a reusable helper function (e.g., isCienaOptics(t, dut, p)). Additionally, ensure the helper function handles varying capitalization by converting the manufacturer name to uppercase before performing the substring check.
| // Ciena 800ZRP is not backward compatible with 400G. | |
| if isCienaOptics(t, dut, p) { |
References
- Refactor repeated telemetry wait or validation logic into reusable helper functions to improve maintainability and facilitate future optimizations (e.g., batching gNMI lookups) or cross-vendor support.
| return OperationalModeList{1, 3} // 800G : 1 (8x112G), 400G : 3 (4x112G) | ||
| case ondatra.PMD800GBASEZRP: | ||
| if dut.Vendor() == ondatra.CISCO { | ||
| // Ciena 800ZRP is not backward compatible with 400G. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
line 189 mentions Cisco, but comment mentions Ciena.
3 participants
adding cisco and juniper support to transceiver test for MVC800 and fix some other bugs.