Add to_text for vrf names #772
Conversation
Codecov Report
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #772 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 85.01% 85.01%
=======================================
Files 211 211
Lines 18230 18231 +1
=======================================
+ Hits 15498 15499 +1
Misses 2732 2732 |
|
Hey @wormley as you correctly pointed out "This proposed change may cause some issue for anyone using purely numeric vrf names as "9" will now sort after "10" and the section will be re-ordered." I would recommend if we can have a fresh implementation of a sorting algorithm that can handle both the pattern of vrf names and place it in a generic place like netcommon, it would have been the right approach to this issue. Let us know if you need any information on this. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This would require implementing the changes suggested by @KB-perByte, before we can take it forward. Please let us know if you need any help on this.
Thank you for your contribution! We really appreciate it.
SUMMARY
ISSUE TYPE
COMPONENT NAME
cisco.nxos.nxos_bgp_global
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The cisco.nxos.nxos_bgp_global suffers the same edge case as was fixed in snmp last year. If there are mixed vrf names some having all digits and some having letters the same error occurs in sorted() when it tries to compare int to string.
This is the same code change as was done in snmp_server.
This proposed change may cause some issue for anyone using purely numeric vrf names as "9" will now sort after "10" and the section will be re-ordered.