(proto change) Add ActionSelectionMode and SizeSemantics to ActionProfileActionSet in P4Runtime.

[angelazhang8]

Motivation

Our switches currently support per-group hash modes and resource usage modes. We are currently not leveraging this capability. This P4 API change allows for more granular control of the WCMP implementation in GPINS.

Summary of changes

Add BucketSelectionMode (with modes DEFAULT_MODE_DETERMINED_BY_ACTION_SELECTOR, HASH, and RANDOM) and SizeSemantics (with modes DEFAULT_SIZE_DETERMINED_BY_ACTION_SELECTOR, SUM_OF_WEIGHTS, and SUM_OF_MEMBERS) to ActionProfileActionSet in p4runtime.proto.

[chrispsommers]

You still need to update the generated code, right?

[jonathan-dilorenzo]

Suggested a bunch of comments, otherwise looks great (once generated code is updated too).

[jonathan-dilorenzo]

Ok! This LGTM! @verios-google, @matthewtlam, @jafingerhut, and @chrispsommers, do we have any idea what's causing the ubuntu-22.04,latest build to fail? And whether it's passing at head? It looks like there's some weird issue with protobufs for Go based on my cursory read.

Edit: I guess not since #559 fails that build too and doesn't change the proto at all? So then, do we feel comfortable merging this @jafingerhut and @chrispsommers?

[matthewtlam]

Ok! This LGTM! @verios-google, @matthewtlam, @jafingerhut, and @chrispsommers, do we have any idea what's causing the ubuntu-22.04,latest build to fail? And whether it's passing at head? It looks like there's some weird issue with protobufs for Go based on my cursory read.

Edit: I guess not since #559 fails that build too and doesn't change the proto at all? So then, do we feel comfortable merging this @jafingerhut and @chrispsommers?

I think it makes sense to just merge this PR. It seems that this build has been failing since Jun 23 https://github.com/p4lang/p4runtime/actions/runs/15837959752.

The build fails out of the blue upon taking a closer look as we can see @verios-google's last change and a series of passing scheduled builds.

[matthewtlam]

Proto changes LGTM

[jafingerhut]

FYI, I think Google folks are still the most vocal proponents of using Bazel for builds, so I'd ask if anyone there would be interested in looking into why the builds are failing for that particular Ubuntu/Bazel version combination, and see whether something should be changed there.

[jafingerhut]

The new additions look reasonable to me. Looking forward to reviewing the corresponding additions to the P4Runtime spec that go with these (on a different PR).

[jonathan-dilorenzo]

Alright, let me open an issue for the Bazel stuff and we can take a look at that separately. @jafingerhut or @chrispsommers, could I ask you to merge this?

[chrispsommers]

#562

[jafingerhut]

I see that @chrispsommers has already approved the proto changes in the corresponding earlier PR #560 so will go ahead and merge this despite it failing one of the CI tests. I am guessing that likely that failing CI test will be either (a) updated to work fine on this PR's changes, or (b) someone will discover that Ubuntu/Bazel version combo isn't supported, and therefore should no longer be a CI test for this repo.

[jonathan-dilorenzo]

Thanks to both of you!