[BGPCEP-873] BGP operational information not available Created: 21/May/19 Updated: 03/Nov/20 Resolved: 19/Jul/19 |
|
| Status: | Resolved |
| Project: | bgpcep |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Fluorine |
| Fix Version/s: | Sodium, Fluorine SR3, Neon SR2 |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Highest |
| Reporter: | Luis Gomez | Assignee: | Robert Varga |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Description |
|
This is a regression detected in Flourine: https://jenkins.opendaylight.org/releng/view/bgpcep/job/bgpcep-csit-1node-userfeatures-all-fluorine/ Doing a GET on this URL: /restconf/operational/openconfig-network-instance:network-instances/network-instance/global-bgp/openconfig-network-instance:protocols/protocol/openconfig-policy-types:BGP/example-bgp-rib does not return anything:
{
"errors": {
"error": [
{
"error-type": "application",
"error-tag": "data-missing",
"error-message": "Request could not be completed because the relevant data model content does not exist "
}
]
}
}
|
| Comments |
| Comment by Luis Gomez [ 21/May/19 ] |
|
Looks like the same regression was recently introduced in Neon: |
| Comment by Luis Gomez [ 21/May/19 ] |
|
And it has been in sodium for some time now: |
| Comment by Luis Gomez [ 21/May/19 ] |
|
This patch created the regression in neon: https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/81929/ The revert https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/82197 works good (no 404 error) according to this: |
| Comment by Luis Gomez [ 23/May/19 ] |
|
Just push revert patch for stable/fluorine: https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/82210/ |
| Comment by Luis Gomez [ 27/Jun/19 ] |
|
This is now fixed in all branches except sodium because the revert patch has conflicts. |
| Comment by Jamo Luhrsen [ 18/Jul/19 ] |
|
actually the sodium revert patch is now abandoned: https://git.opendaylight.org/gerrit/#/c/82223/ |
| Comment by Robert Varga [ 18/Jul/19 ] |
|
Having essentially redone the patch, I think the core trouble is with the topology provider part, which has lost reference registration, hence it probably is not getting properly started. At any rate, we will follow up separately. |