fix: improve LLDP remote port labels for mixed neighbors#10
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Summary
sonic_lldp_neighbor_infowithremote_port_desc,remote_port_id_subtype, andremote_port_displayremote_port_idfor protocol fidelity but add display-friendly field selection logicremote_port_descas display when subtype is local/mac (7/3) to avoid opaque IDs like535in dashboardsWhy
Some neighbors advertise LLDP PortID as a local identifier (for example
535) while the operator-friendly interface is in Port Description (ge-0/0/15.0). This change makes dashboard labels consistent without losing raw LLDP PortID.Verification
go test ./...192.168.240.124:sonic_lldp_neighbor_info{local_interface=\"eth0\", ..., remote_port_id=\"535\", remote_port_desc=\"ge-0/0/15.0\", remote_port_display=\"ge-0/0/15.0\"} 1