Juniper junos show system configuration database usage

[jnicholson56]

Adding new file juniper_junos_show_system_configuration_database_usage.textfsm.

Send PR as draft for feedback before finalizing it.

[mjbear]

@jnicholson56
Should the megabyte (MB) unit abbreviation be captured?
Reworded: Should we also capture the megabyte (MB) unit abbreviation?

Are those units always in megabytes?
Could those ever be in gigabytes (GB)?
(Food for thought possibly.)

In the meanwhile, I do have some whitespace regex suggestions I'll start putting out there.

[jnicholson56]

@jnicholson56 Should the megabyte (MB) unit abbreviation be captured? Reworded: Should we also capture the megabyte (MB) unit abbreviation?

Are those units always in megabytes? Could those ever be in gigabytes (GB)? (Food for thought possibly.)

In the meanwhile, I do have some whitespace regex suggestions I'll start putting out there.

In all the examples I have on my network (100's), they are all labeled as MB. The output is the same on both Classic and EVO as well.

Thanks for the suggestions. I had a few mistakes that I have committed as well. Hopefully tests pass this time :D

[jnicholson56]

This is ready to go unless there are more suggestions.

[mjbear]

In all the examples I have on my network (100's), they are all labeled as MB. The output is the same on both Classic and EVO as well.

And now that I look at the raw cli output again, I do notice some values are more than a thousand and are still in MB units.

All good. 😀 😅

[jnicholson56]

Juniper is nothing if not inconsistent across the CLI :)

[jnicholson56]

Yes I can do that. It might take me a day or two to stage the conditions required.

…

On Thu, Apr 3, 2025, 19:28 Michael Bear ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In ntc_templates/templates/juniper_junos_show_system_configuration_database_usage.textfsm <#2087 (comment)> : > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +Value MAX_DB_SIZE (\S+) +Value CURR_DB_SIZE (\S+) +Value ACTUAL_DB_SIZE (\S+) +Value AVAIL_DB_SPACE (\S+) + +# If the database is being modified, a "cannot proceed" message will be displayed +# Otherwise, the database usage will be displayed + +Start + ^\s*Maximum\s+size\s+of\s+the\s+database:\s+${MAX_DB_SIZE}\s* + ^\s*Current\s+database\s+size\s+on\s+disk:\s+${CURR_DB_SIZE}\s* + ^\s*Actual\s+database\s+usage:\s+${ACTUAL_DB_SIZE}\s* + ^\s*Available\s+database\s+space:\s+${AVAIL_DB_SPACE}\s* -> Record + ^{(master|backup)}\s*$$ + ^\s*Cannot\s+proceed,\s+database\s+is\s+currently\s+being\s+modified -> Error @jnicholson56 <https://github.com/jnicholson56> Would you by chance add raw output to this PR for an instance where "cannot proceed" is present? Please and thank you! — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2087 (review)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AILVUEXZLAVQ3VPOFSFD5ST2XXG4JAVCNFSM6AAAAABZWFAWASVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDONBRGQ4TMMRVGA> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[jnicholson56]

Originally this template was failing when the configuration was being updated. The configuration database gets locked and can't be polled. I added the error as a way to let me know it failed for that reason and that I could ignore the issue. There may be a better way to handle it but this worked for me in my ignorance.

…

On Mon, May 5, 2025, 19:44 Michael Bear ***@***.***> wrote: ***@***.**** commented on this pull request. ------------------------------ In ntc_templates/templates/juniper_junos_show_system_configuration_database_usage.textfsm <#2087 (comment)> : > @@ -0,0 +1,17 @@ +Value MAX_DB_SIZE (\S+) +Value CURR_DB_SIZE (\S+) +Value ACTUAL_DB_SIZE (\S+) +Value AVAIL_DB_SPACE (\S+) + +# If the database is being modified, a "cannot proceed" message will be displayed +# Otherwise, the database usage will be displayed + +Start + ^\s*Maximum\s+size\s+of\s+the\s+database:\s+${MAX_DB_SIZE}\s* + ^\s*Current\s+database\s+size\s+on\s+disk:\s+${CURR_DB_SIZE}\s* + ^\s*Actual\s+database\s+usage:\s+${ACTUAL_DB_SIZE}\s* + ^\s*Available\s+database\s+space:\s+${AVAIL_DB_SPACE}\s* -> Record + ^{(master|backup)}\s*$$ + ^\s*Cannot\s+proceed,\s+database\s+is\s+currently\s+being\s+modified -> Error Yes I can do that. It might take me a day or two to stage the conditions required. @jnicholson56 <https://github.com/jnicholson56> I guess we'll let this one ride as it is. *Question:* ❓ I suppose the idea was to rather have the output not parse because it throws an error as opposed to parse and contain empty strings for each key? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2087 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AILVUEUJIZT432YOU6KZKAT25AAYPAVCNFSM6AAAAABZWFAWASVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMZDQMJWGQ4TMMJTGI> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mjbear]

Originally this template was failing when the configuration was being updated. The configuration database gets locked and can't be polled. I added the error as a way to let me know it failed for that reason and that I could ignore the issue.

Gotcha

There may be a better way to handle it but this worked for me in my ignorance.

I'll make suggestion(s) and you can decide.

If the config db was locked the result would be an empty list which is easy to test for in Python.

---
parsed_sample: []

(An empty list evaluates to the boolean False in Python.)
🥳 I'd go with this solution if it were me. 😅

[jnicholson56]

My original solution for the problem a few years back now. I am using netconf to poll and the model is a bit more forgiving. If you want I can remove this error from the template. Since this has been dangling for some time I suspect you guys want to get it completed and pushed through.

…

On Wed, May 7, 2025, 20:27 Michael Bear ***@***.***> wrote: *mjbear* left a comment (networktocode/ntc-templates#2087) <#2087 (comment)> Originally this template was failing when the configuration was being updated. The configuration database gets locked and can't be polled. I added the error as a way to let me know it failed for that reason and that I could ignore the issue. Gotcha There may be a better way to handle it but this worked for me in my ignorance. I'll make suggestion(s) and you can decide. If the config db was locked the result would be an empty list which is easy to test for in Python. ---parsed_sample: [] (An empty list evaluates to the boolean False in Python.) 🥳 I'd go with this solution if it were me. 😅 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#2087 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AILVUETHVEWKRM2WZZ23K2L25KXHVAVCNFSM6AAAAABZWFAWASVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDQNRRGE2DENBVGQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[mjbear]

My original solution for the problem a few years back now. I am using netconf to poll and the model is a bit more forgiving. If you want I can remove this error from the template.

How about keeping the message in the template, but remove the Error action?
(I will submit a suggestion on GH here.)

(Ultimately since nothing matches we end up with an empty Python list which is easy to test for in the code that will use the list of parsed data.)

Since this has been dangling for some time I suspect you guys want to get it completed and pushed through.

Things got busy -- breaking changes were held to the side for a major release and normal changes piled up a bit too. 😀 I'm looking to merge a few to reduce our number of remaining PRs. 🙂

[jnicholson56]

@mjbear That works for me.

[mjbear]

@mjbear That works for me.

My commit message is a bit off - it was from my testing with that line in a test output file.

I have since pushed the test output file (with the config db locked message) to this branch so we have test coverage.

Apologies for any confusion ... I should have amended my commit message. 😐