Enhancement: Missing get_power_override_support interface in SFP Base API

[arista-hpandya]

Is it platform specific

generic

Importance or Severity

Medium

Description of the enhancement

Currently, the SONiC SfpBase and SfpOptoeBase classes provide methods to get and set power override values (get_power_override, set_power_override). However, there is no standardized way for the platform layer or upper-layer applications (such as sonic-mgmt tests) to query whether a specific transceiver actually supports the power override feature.

Without this programatic API approach, sonic-mgmt has to rely on hard-coded methods that are very delicate:

 def is_xcvr_support_power_override(self, xcvr_info_dict):
        """Returns True if transceiver supports power override, False if not supported"""
        xcvr_type = xcvr_info_dict["type_abbrv_name"]
        is_valid_xcvr_type = "QSFP" in xcvr_type and xcvr_type != "QSFP-DD"
        return self.is_xcvr_optical(xcvr_info_dict) and is_valid_xcvr_type

Source: https://github.com/sonic-net/sonic-mgmt/blob/a1d1fd8717c4525055a3a4a9e3250232ee3b0d86/tests/platform_tests/api/test_sfp.py#L374-L378

Current Behavior

Using xcvr_type to extrapolate power_override support:

 def is_xcvr_support_power_override(self, xcvr_info_dict):
        """Returns True if transceiver supports power override, False if not supported"""
        xcvr_type = xcvr_info_dict["type_abbrv_name"]
        is_valid_xcvr_type = "QSFP" in xcvr_type and xcvr_type != "QSFP-DD"
        return self.is_xcvr_optical(xcvr_info_dict) and is_valid_xcvr_type

Proposed Behavior

The idea is to support direct API calls like: if sfp.get_power_override_support(platform_api_conn, i) is True:

[arista-hpandya]

Addressed by:

sonic-net/sonic-platform-common#641
sonic-net/sonic-mgmt#23280

Please merge in this order.