Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix arubaAPs #2332

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix arubaAPs #2332

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

moetezz
Copy link

@moetezz moetezz commented Sep 9, 2024

Fixed the WiFi interfaces for the Aruba APs since technically each WiFi radio, for example, 2.4GHz, 5GHz, and 6GHz, is an independent interface rather than one WiFi interface( in a use case a device might be connected using 2.4GHz signal to the AP thus it doesn't make it connected to the 5GHz), and this granularity makes it better.
Also fixed the console ports and power ports name to better fit the specs from the DataSheet.
Removed USB-A from console ports since they are not console ports.
FIxed Some Ethernet interfaces definition

@robinreinhardt
Copy link
Contributor

Hey moetezz,

I'd suggest that we should leave the product numbers (SKUs) as they were because they depend on the different areas in the world.
For example, the AP-515 has the following SKUs:

  • US: Q9H63A
  • RW: Q9H62A
  • JP: Q9H61A
  • IL: Q9H60A
  • EG: Q9H59A

This is how it is done with most of the Aruba AP models.

@moetezz
Copy link
Author

moetezz commented Sep 19, 2024

Hey @robinreinhardt,

Thank you for your feedback.
You are right about the different SKUs for different regions. In this case, I would suggest keeping them empty, it is not a required field anyway and I don't think having inaccurate information will be helpful.

Let me know what you think.

Copy link

@iamk3 iamk3 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

These updates are the correct way to go for Aruba APs. Hopefully this will be merged soon! Thank you for this work!

@robinreinhardt
Copy link
Contributor

@moetezz
In my opinion I would not leave the SKU field empty, as I think it is often used for imports and automations.
If it is empty you would have to parse the name from the model name

@moetezz
Copy link
Author

moetezz commented Sep 30, 2024

Under your request, I reverted the part number to reflect the model name.

@iamk3
Copy link

iamk3 commented Oct 1, 2024

In my opinion, the SKU was the correct way to go. This would bring consistency across the portfolio. Then APs for other Regulatory Domains could be added.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants