[bgp-config] fix create idempotency#10781
Merged
Merged
Conversation
nicolaskagami
marked this pull request as ready for review
July 9, 2026 15:54
nicolaskagami
requested review from
david-crespo,
internet-diglett and
jgallagher
and removed request for
internet-diglett
July 9, 2026 16:45
Contributor
|
This looks good if we want to keep the idempotency behavior. I'm investigating (with a prototype I'll post as a draft PR) the alternative of making it work like all the other endpoints and just 409 on a name conflict. |
Contributor
Author
I think it makes sense to fix the idempotency for now while we discuss removing it. |
david-crespo
approved these changes
Jul 14, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
descriptionandmax_pathsfields for idempotency.Fixes #10765
The
BgpConfigcreate endpoint explicitly checks for idempotency and returns OK if all fields match an already existing entry. Regardless of whether we want to keep this behavior, this PR merely fixes the implementation for a few fields.