Add support for unordered XML comparison in compliance checks

[jmpettit]

Closes: #1020

What's Changed

Adds unordered support for XML

To Do

• Explanation of Change(s)
• Added change log fragment(s) (for more information see the documentation)
• Attached Screenshots, Payload Example
• Unit, Integration Tests
• Documentation Updates (when adding/changing features)
• Outline Remaining Work, Constraints from Design

[github-actions]

Coverage report

Click to see where and how coverage changed

File	Statements	Missing	Coverage	Coverage (new stmts)	Lines missing
nautobot_golden_config
models.py					164-165
Project Total

This report was generated by python-coverage-comment-action

[itdependsnetworks]

I don't think this is accurate. I think that ordered here showed if it was in fact ordered. Meaning "I may or may not care it's ordered, but this config is fact ordered"

I could be wrong on that, but at least that is how it works on the cli side. It allowed me to short circuit certain conditions.

[jmpettit]

i see, i think we could replicate this but would need to diff twice if they didn't have order checked in the rule

      ordered_missing = main.diff_texts(obj.actual, obj.intended, diff_options=diff_options)
      ordered_extra = main.diff_texts(obj.intended, obj.actual, diff_options=diff_options)
      ordered_compliant = not ordered_missing and not ordered_extra

      if obj.rule.config_ordered:
          missing = ordered_missing
          extra = ordered_extra
      else:
          actual_xml = _sort_xml(obj.actual)
          intended_xml = _sort_xml(obj.intended)
          missing = main.diff_texts(actual_xml, intended_xml, diff_options=diff_options)
          extra = main.diff_texts(intended_xml, actual_xml, diff_options=diff_options)

      compliance = not missing and not extra
      compliance_int = int(compliance)
      ordered = ordered_compliant

[itdependsnetworks]

overall, i think this is good, @jeffkala thoughts?

[jeffkala]

seems good to me. Have you fully tested it in a lab type env?

[jmpettit]

seems good to me. Have you fully tested it in a lab type env?

I haven't, the tests run the actual compliance jobs tho - is there something i'm missing that the tests don't cover?

[itdependsnetworks]

seems good to me. Have you fully tested it in a lab type env?

I haven't, the tests run the actual compliance jobs tho - is there something i'm missing that the tests don't cover?

is there something i'm missing that the tests don't cover? ... a lot :)

Nearly every time this has not been tested it has introduced some kind of bug so we are a bit skittish.

[jmpettit]

hmm ok, i just checked my dev environment and i don't have anything setup - if one of you guys can easily test this i'd appreciate it, otherwise i'll get to it when i get to it

[matt852]

PR #1013 may help with spinning up a test environment quickly for this and other new features