Add DHCP renew release test #923

pau-hedgehog · 2025-09-01T16:38:47Z

No description provided.

github-actions · 2025-09-01T22:29:34Z

Test Results

8 files 32 suites 2h 4m 48s ⏱️
20 tests 6 ✅ 14 💤 0 ❌
160 runs 48 ✅ 112 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 95db236.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

edipascale

Looking good, just a couple of small things

pkg/hhfab/release.go

edipascale · 2025-09-04T08:13:33Z

So I'm a little conflicted about this test the way it currently is, because I do not believe it's testing DHCP renewals anymore. Instead we are reconfiguring the interfaces and getting brand new leases. It's not a bad thing to have additional coverage on this, but it's not what we're saying we are doing, right? For instance, l3vni actual renewals should not have the short->long lease cycle, or at least that's not what I would expect. I think to test renewals you need to set the lease to a reasonably short time via the DHCPOptions and wait long enough for it to expire, then check what you get afterwards. It might be possible to force a renew earlier via networkctl, although this question appears to imply hat it doesn't really work that way, and your experience seems to confirm it.

It's also easy to break this if we ever change the lease time values we use in the DHCP server. This is inevitable to a certain extent, although we could at least set the lease time as a DHCPOption for the "large lease" value instead of using the default and risking it changing.

None of the above means that we should reject the PR, but I think it's worth thinking about what we're doing.

The one thing I think we should change regardless is the code to parse the DHCP lease - instead of duplicating it let's use the existing function or adapt it if it doesn't fit your needs.

pau-hedgehog · 2025-09-04T08:19:37Z

So I'm a little conflicted about this test the way it currently is, because I do not believe it's testing DHCP renewals anymore. Instead we are reconfiguring the interfaces and getting brand new leases. It's not a bad thing to have additional coverage on this, but it's not what we're saying we are doing, right? For instance, l3vni actual renewals should not have the short->long lease cycle, or at least that's not what I would expect. I think to test renewals you need to set the lease to a reasonably short time via the DHCPOptions and wait long enough for it to expire, then check what you get afterwards. It might be possible to force a renew earlier via networkctl, although this question appears to imply hat it doesn't really work that way, and your experience seems to confirm it.

It's also easy to break this if we ever change the lease time values we use in the DHCP server. This is inevitable to a certain extent, although we could at least set the lease time as a DHCPOption for the "large lease" value instead of using the default and risking it changing.

None of the above means that we should reject the PR, but I think it's worth thinking about what we're doing.

The one thing I think we should change regardless is the code to parse the DHCP lease - instead of duplicating it let's use the existing function or adapt it if it doesn't fit your needs.

All the points you raise are 100% valid. Let me iterate once more to address all the concerns

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

This PR adds a new DHCP renewal test to verify that VPC-attached interfaces properly handle DHCP lease renewals with shorter lease times. The test configures VPC DHCP options with a reduced lease time and monitors the automatic renewal process across servers.

Adds comprehensive DHCP renewal testing with concurrent execution support
Implements VPC DHCP configuration updates with proper reversion handling
Adds lease parsing and validation utilities for monitoring renewal behavior

_{Tip: Customize your code reviews with copilot-instructions.md. Create the file or learn how to get started.}

pkg/hhfab/release.go

pau-hedgehog · 2025-11-03T17:08:14Z

So I'm a little conflicted about this test the way it currently is, because I do not believe it's testing DHCP renewals anymore. Instead we are reconfiguring the interfaces and getting brand new leases. It's not a bad thing to have additional coverage on this, but it's not what we're saying we are doing, right? For instance, l3vni actual renewals should not have the short->long lease cycle, or at least that's not what I would expect. I think to test renewals you need to set the lease to a reasonably short time via the DHCPOptions and wait long enough for it to expire, then check what you get afterwards. It might be possible to force a renew earlier via networkctl, although this question appears to imply hat it doesn't really work that way, and your experience seems to confirm it.
It's also easy to break this if we ever change the lease time values we use in the DHCP server. This is inevitable to a certain extent, although we could at least set the lease time as a DHCPOption for the "large lease" value instead of using the default and risking it changing.
None of the above means that we should reject the PR, but I think it's worth thinking about what we're doing.
The one thing I think we should change regardless is the code to parse the DHCP lease - instead of duplicating it let's use the existing function or adapt it if it doesn't fit your needs.

All the points you raise are 100% valid. Let me iterate once more to address all the concerns

Test has been updated to test the renew as suggested

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 7 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

pkg/hhfab/release.go

github-actions · 2025-11-03T18:52:17Z

Release Tests

12 files 48 suites 3h 36m 30s ⏱️
25 tests 7 ✅ 16 💤 2 ❌
300 runs 79 ✅ 219 💤 2 ❌

For more details on these failures, see this check.

Results for commit 2b280e9.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

Signed-off-by: Pau Capdevila <[email protected]>

Copilot

Pull Request Overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated 5 comments.

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

pkg/hhfab/release.go

Copilot · 2025-11-04T13:11:22Z

pkg/hhfab/release.go

+			}
+
+			// Look for short lease (L3VNI 2-step process)
+			if !shortLeaseFound && info.ValidLifetime >= 5 && info.ValidLifetime <= 15 {


The magic numbers 5 and 15 for the short lease detection range should be defined as named constants to clarify what this range represents in the L3VNI 2-step process.

Copilot · 2025-11-04T13:11:22Z

pkg/hhfab/release.go

+			}
+
+			// Wait for full lease
+			if info.ValidLifetime >= int(shortLeaseTime)-10 {


The tolerance value of 10 seconds should be defined as a named constant to improve code clarity and maintainability.

pkg/hhfab/release.go

edipascale

Thanks @pau-hedgehog, this is now a proper DHCP renewal test. We could merge it as is, but I believe the code can be made much simpler

pkg/hhfab/release.go

edipascale · 2025-11-05T11:56:19Z

pkg/hhfab/release.go

+// Sets VPC DHCPOptions to a shorter lease and reconfigures servers via networkctl
+// Waits for DHCP renewal and checks lease time
+func (testCtx *VPCPeeringTestCtx) dhcpRenewalTest(ctx context.Context) (bool, []RevertFunc, error) {
+	servers, err := testCtx.getServersWithVPCAttachments(ctx)


I don't understand what we're doing here - you've created a helper function where you are already fetching a bunch of things, but you are only returning the servers - and then you are fetching some of that stuff again in the caller. Can't we fetch everything that we need in the helper directly?

More in general, if the aim is to find any VPC that has some severs attached to it, there's code already to do that - see lines 1416-1460 in the static external test

edipascale · 2025-11-05T11:58:37Z

pkg/hhfab/release.go

+	slog.Info("Testing DHCP renewal", "servers", len(testServers), "vpc", testVPC.Name)
+
+	// Save original DHCP options for ALL subnets in the VPC
+	originalSubnetOptions := make(map[string]*vpcapi.VPCDHCPOptions)


you should be able to use the autogenerated deep copy functions, but also why can't we just update the lease time without overwriting the entire options? then we would just need to store the old lease time and replace it in the same way

edipascale · 2025-11-05T12:00:32Z

pkg/hhfab/release.go

+			continue
+		}
+
+		_, err = GetServerNetconfCmd(conn, subnet.VLAN, testCtx.setupOpts.HashPolicy)


what's the purpose of this if we are not storing the command?

edipascale · 2025-11-05T13:33:01Z

pkg/hhfab/release.go

+		return fmt.Errorf("getting ssh config for server %s: %w", serverName, err)
+	}
+
+	_, _, err = ssh.Run(ctx, fmt.Sprintf("sudo networkctl reconfigure %s", ifName))


nit: I don't know if this produces any stderr output in case of failure, but if so we could add it to the error message to ease troubleshooting. when in doubt I generally add it

edipascale · 2025-11-05T13:37:56Z

pkg/hhfab/release.go

+	return info, nil
+}
+
+func checkDHCPLeaseInRange(leaseInfo *DHCPLeaseInfo, expectedLease, tolerance int) error {


there's already a checkDHCPLease function in the release test. Let's unify them if at all possible, this file is already huge as it is

pau-hedgehog self-assigned this Sep 1, 2025

pau-hedgehog added ci:+release Enable VLAB release tests ci:+hlab Enable hybrid VLAB tests labels Sep 1, 2025

pau-hedgehog marked this pull request as ready for review September 2, 2025 07:17

pau-hedgehog requested a review from a team as a code owner September 2, 2025 07:17

pau-hedgehog requested a review from edipascale September 2, 2025 07:17

edipascale requested changes Sep 2, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/hhfab/release.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/hhfab/release.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/hhfab/release.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pau-hedgehog force-pushed the pau/dhcp_renew_rel_test branch 2 times, most recently from d446dcf to 3f07c55 Compare September 3, 2025 16:22

pau-hedgehog requested a review from edipascale September 3, 2025 21:23

pau-hedgehog removed the ci:+hlab Enable hybrid VLAB tests label Sep 3, 2025

pau-hedgehog marked this pull request as draft September 4, 2025 08:19

pau-hedgehog force-pushed the pau/dhcp_renew_rel_test branch 2 times, most recently from 46e14bf to d23ea05 Compare September 25, 2025 17:48

Frostman requested a review from Copilot September 30, 2025 20:54

Copilot AI reviewed Sep 30, 2025

View reviewed changes

pkg/hhfab/release.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/hhfab/release.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/hhfab/release.go Show resolved Hide resolved

pkg/hhfab/release.go Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

pau-hedgehog changed the title ~~chore: add DHCP renew release test~~ Add DHCP renew release test Oct 7, 2025

pau-hedgehog mentioned this pull request Oct 7, 2025

DHCP renewal release test #926

Open

pau-hedgehog force-pushed the pau/dhcp_renew_rel_test branch 2 times, most recently from 1b5ae33 to f796072 Compare November 3, 2025 16:40

pau-hedgehog requested a review from Copilot November 3, 2025 17:08

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 3, 2025

View reviewed changes

pau-hedgehog force-pushed the pau/dhcp_renew_rel_test branch from f796072 to 7376c67 Compare November 4, 2025 00:01

chore: add DHCP renew release test

2b280e9

Signed-off-by: Pau Capdevila <[email protected]>

pau-hedgehog force-pushed the pau/dhcp_renew_rel_test branch from 7376c67 to 2b280e9 Compare November 4, 2025 08:04

pau-hedgehog requested a review from Copilot November 4, 2025 13:09

Copilot AI reviewed Nov 4, 2025

View reviewed changes

pau-hedgehog marked this pull request as ready for review November 4, 2025 13:14

edipascale requested changes Nov 5, 2025

View reviewed changes

Add DHCP renew release test #923

Are you sure you want to change the base?

Add DHCP renew release test #923

Uh oh!

Conversation

pau-hedgehog commented Sep 1, 2025

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Sep 1, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Test Results

Uh oh!

edipascale left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edipascale commented Sep 4, 2025

Uh oh!

pau-hedgehog commented Sep 4, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

pau-hedgehog commented Nov 3, 2025

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

github-actions bot commented Nov 3, 2025 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Release Tests

Uh oh!

Copilot AI left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Pull Request Overview

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Copilot AI Nov 4, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edipascale left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

edipascale Nov 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

edipascale Nov 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

edipascale Nov 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

edipascale Nov 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

edipascale Nov 5, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

github-actions bot commented Sep 1, 2025 •

edited

Loading

github-actions bot commented Nov 3, 2025 •

edited

Loading