Adding gRIBI recursive route resolution with routing protocol churn - #5991
Adding gRIBI recursive route resolution with routing protocol churn#5991rohit-rp wants to merge 4 commits into
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 adds a new system test case designed to validate the robustness of gRIBI recursive route resolution. The test specifically ensures that forwarding states are correctly updated when underlying BGP routes undergo withdrawal and re-advertisement, confirming that the system can handle routing protocol churn without requiring manual gRIBI reprovisioning. 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
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request introduces a new test plan, TE-1.4, for verifying gRIBI recursive route resolution under routing protocol churn. It includes the test documentation, metadata, and registration in the test registry. The reviewer feedback correctly identifies multiple violations of the repository's style guide regarding IPv4 address assignments, specifically the use of unauthorized private ranges like 10.0.0.0/24 and 20.0.0.0/24. These should be updated to compliant ranges such as 100.64.0.0/24 and 198.18.0.0/24 as suggested.
System Test Plan see for more info: b/540866644