Skip to content

[action] [PR:23898] Remove stale xfail for cacl/test_cacl_application.py#23976

Merged
mssonicbld merged 1 commit intosonic-net:202511from
mssonicbld:cherry/202511/23898
Apr 16, 2026
Merged

[action] [PR:23898] Remove stale xfail for cacl/test_cacl_application.py#23976
mssonicbld merged 1 commit intosonic-net:202511from
mssonicbld:cherry/202511/23898

Conversation

@mssonicbld
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description of PR

Summary:
Remove the stale xfail mark for cacl/test_cacl_application.py from tests_mark_conditions.yaml.

The xfail was added to wait for sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301 to be included in sonic-buildimage. That PR was merged on 2025-10-24 (~6 months ago) and has been included in builds for months. The xfail is no longer needed.

Fixes #21175

Type of change

  • Bug fix
  • Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
  • New Test case
  • Skipped for non-supported platforms
  • Test case improvement

Back port request

  • 202205
  • 202305
  • 202311
  • 202405
  • 202411
  • 202505
  • 202511

Approach

What is the motivation for this PR?

Issue #21175 was created to track removing the xfail for cacl/test_cacl_application.py after sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301 was merged into sonic-buildimage.

The PR was merged on 2025-10-24 and the xfail condition is now satisfied. Keeping the stale xfail suppresses real failures and pollutes nightly test reports.

How did you do it?

Removed the 4-line xfail block from tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/tests_mark_conditions.yaml:
`yaml
xfail:
reason: "Wait PR sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301 include in sonic-buildimage"
conditions:

The skip condition for VS (asic_type in ['vs']) is kept as-is since it serves a different purpose (PR testing).

How did you verify/test it?

  • Verified sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301 was merged on 2025-10-24
  • Checked Kusto test results: cacl.test_cacl_application tests are running on HW testbeds with reasonable pass rates
  • Confirmed no CRLF corruption in the diff (exactly 4 lines removed)

Any platform specific information?

N/A

Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?

N/A

Documentation

N/A

### Description of PR

Summary:
Remove the stale xfail mark for `cacl/test_cacl_application.py` from
`tests_mark_conditions.yaml`.

The xfail was added to wait for
[sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301](sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301)
to be included in sonic-buildimage. That PR was merged on 2025-10-24 (~6
months ago) and has been included in builds for months. The xfail is no
longer needed.

Fixes sonic-net#21175

### Type of change

- [x] Bug fix
- [ ] Testbed and Framework(new/improvement)
- [ ] New Test case
    - [ ] Skipped for non-supported platforms
- [ ] Test case improvement

### Back port request
- [ ] 202205
- [ ] 202305
- [ ] 202311
- [ ] 202405
- [ ] 202411
- [ ] 202505
- [ ] 202511

### Approach
#### What is the motivation for this PR?
Issue [sonic-net#21175](sonic-net#21175) was
created to track removing the xfail for `cacl/test_cacl_application.py`
after
[sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301](sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301)
was merged into sonic-buildimage.

The PR was merged on 2025-10-24 and the xfail condition is now
satisfied. Keeping the stale xfail suppresses real failures and pollutes
nightly test reports.

#### How did you do it?
Removed the 4-line xfail block from
`tests/common/plugins/conditional_mark/tests_mark_conditions.yaml`:
`yaml
  xfail:
reason: "Wait PR
sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301 include in
sonic-buildimage"
    conditions:
      - "sonic-net#21175"
`

The skip condition for VS (`asic_type in ['vs']`) is kept as-is since it
serves a different purpose (PR testing).

#### How did you verify/test it?
- Verified
[sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301](sonic-net/sonic-host-services#301)
was merged on 2025-10-24
- Checked Kusto test results: `cacl.test_cacl_application` tests are
running on HW testbeds with reasonable pass rates
- Confirmed no CRLF corruption in the diff (exactly 4 lines removed)

#### Any platform specific information?
N/A

#### Supported testbed topology if it's a new test case?
N/A

### Documentation
N/A

Signed-off-by: Zhaohui Sun <zhaohuisun@microsoft.com>
Signed-off-by: mssonicbld <sonicbld@microsoft.com>
@mssonicbld
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Original PR: #23898

@mssonicbld
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

/azp run

@azure-pipelines
Copy link
Copy Markdown

Azure Pipelines successfully started running 1 pipeline(s).

@mssonicbld mssonicbld merged commit 21257d3 into sonic-net:202511 Apr 16, 2026
16 checks passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants