get_bgp_neighbors returns "is_enabled: true" for admin down peers on JunOS

[korniand]

Description of Issue/Question

When running get_bgp_neighbors against a JunOS router, it returns "is_enabled: true" for peers that are actually admin down.

Did you follow the steps from https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm#faq

(Place an x between the square brackets where applicable)

• Yes
• [] No

Setup

napalm version

# pip freeze | grep napalm
napalm==3.3.1

Network operating system version

> show version 
Model: mx204
Junos: 19.4R3.11

Steps to Reproduce the Issue

On a JunOS router:

> configure
# set protocols bgp group EBGP neighbor 192.168.255.1 shutdown 
# commit
# exit
> show configuration protocols bgp group EBGP neighbor 192.168.255.1 
description "Test";
authentication-key "removed"; ## SECRET-DATA
export EBGP_OUT;
peer-as 65101;
shutdown;

> show bgp summary 
Threading mode: BGP I/O
Groups: 2 Peers: 3 Down peers: 1
Table          Tot Paths  Act Paths Suppressed    History Damp State    Pending
inet.0               
                       6          6          0          0          0          0
Peer                     AS      InPkt     OutPkt    OutQ   Flaps Last Up/Dwn State|#Active/Received/Accepted/Damped...
192.168.255.1         65101      52390      57967       0       1     1:16:08 Idle  
192.168.255.252       65001     342520     379127       0       2 16w6d 22:41:07 Establ  inet.0: 3/3/3/0
192.168.255.254       65001     342519     379126       0       2 16w6d 22:41:03 Establ  inet.0: 3/3/3/0

On a Linux box:

# napalm --vendor junos --user USER --password PASS HOST call get_bgp_neighbors
{
    "global": {
        "router_id": "",
        "peers": {
            "192.168.255.1": {
                "local_as": <removed>,
                "remote_as": 65101,
                "remote_id": "",
                "is_up": false,
                "is_enabled": true,     <---- THIS IS INCORRECT
                "uptime": 3658,
                "address_family": {
                    "ipv4": {
                        "received_prefixes": -1,
                        "accepted_prefixes": -1,
                        "sent_prefixes": -1
                    },
                    "ipv6": {
                        "received_prefixes": -1,
                        "accepted_prefixes": -1,
                        "sent_prefixes": -1
                    }
                }
            },
            "192.168.255.252": {
                "local_as": <removed>,
                "remote_as": 65001,
                "remote_id": "192.168.255.252",
                "is_up": true,
                "is_enabled": true,
                "description": "",
                "uptime": 10275957,
                "address_family": {
                    "ipv4": {
                        "received_prefixes": 3,
                        "accepted_prefixes": 3,
                        "sent_prefixes": 6
                    },
                    "ipv6": {
                        "received_prefixes": -1,
                        "accepted_prefixes": -1,
                        "sent_prefixes": -1
                    }
                }
            },
            "192.168.255.254": {
                "local_as": <removed>,
                "remote_as": 65001,
                "remote_id": "192.168.255.252",
                "is_up": true,
                "is_enabled": true,
                "description": "",
                "uptime": 10275953,
                "address_family": {
                    "ipv4": {
                        "received_prefixes": 3,
                        "accepted_prefixes": 3,
                        "sent_prefixes": 6
                    },
                    "ipv6": {
                        "received_prefixes": -1,
                        "accepted_prefixes": -1,
                        "sent_prefixes": -1
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
}

Error Traceback

(Paste the complete traceback of the exception between quotes below)

No traceback, just incorrect returned value.

[mirceaulinic]

Hey @korniand - could you confirm that #1566 resolves this issue?

[korniand]

Hi @mirceaulinic
Yes, looks better now.
Thanks a lot for fixing that !