Skip to content

Conversation

@akinross
Copy link
Collaborator

No description provided.

@akinross akinross added the jira-sync Sync this issue to Jira label Nov 28, 2025
@github-actions github-actions bot changed the title Aci link level flow control Aci link level flow control (DCNE-595) Nov 28, 2025
@akinross akinross force-pushed the aci_link_level_flow_control branch from c8cf587 to 2b7fb8d Compare November 28, 2025 09:34
sajagana
sajagana previously approved these changes Nov 28, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@sajagana sajagana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

samiib
samiib previously approved these changes Dec 3, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@samiib samiib left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

gmicol
gmicol previously approved these changes Dec 4, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@gmicol gmicol left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

shrsr
shrsr previously approved these changes Dec 8, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@shrsr shrsr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM (rebase required)

…ss policy with resource aci_link_level_control_flow_interface_policy
@akinross akinross dismissed stale reviews from shrsr, gmicol, samiib, and sajagana via 2142500 December 18, 2025 14:28
@akinross akinross force-pushed the aci_link_level_flow_control branch from 2b7fb8d to 2142500 Compare December 18, 2025 14:28
shrsr
shrsr previously approved these changes Dec 18, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@shrsr shrsr left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

sajagana
sajagana previously approved these changes Dec 19, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@sajagana sajagana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

* `annotation` (annotation) - (string) The annotation of the Link Level Flow Control Interface Policy object.
- Default: `"orchestrator:terraform"`
* `description` (descr) - (string) The description of the Link Level Flow Control Interface Policy object.
* `receive_mode` (llfcRcvAdminSt) - (string) The receive mode of the Link Level Flow Control Interface Policy object.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should these be receive state or similar? To me using mode implies there are multiple options instead of on or off.
The UI says Receive/Send Flow Control. I think either receive_flow_control or receive_state?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To me the terminology of state could imply that it could be multiple options this is why I chose mode. But I guess it it is interpretation specific. Changed to state now, because I do not like the flow_control behind receive since it is already in the object/resource name.

@akinross akinross dismissed stale reviews from sajagana and shrsr via 9077aeb December 23, 2025 09:12
@akinross akinross requested review from sajagana and shrsr December 23, 2025 09:12
@akinross akinross requested a review from samiib December 23, 2025 09:12
@akinross akinross force-pushed the aci_link_level_flow_control branch from 9077aeb to 62a3f62 Compare December 23, 2025 09:20
Copy link
Collaborator

@sajagana sajagana left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM!

Copy link
Collaborator

@samiib samiib left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

LGTM

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

jira-sync Sync this issue to Jira

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants