Cisco ACI: Add flag to bypass potential OOB IP comparison for topology

[garrison-stauffer]

What does this PR do?

This PR addresses an issue that can happen when comparing data from Fabric nodes API (/api/mo/topology.json) to the LLDP API (/api/node/class/lldpAdjEp.json).

It appears that these endpoints will return different IPs for nodes. This PR loosens a constraint that requires the IPs to match before tagging the DataDog Device ID. This new behavior is only available when the feature is enabled in config for now.

Motivation

A customer reported this issue.

Review checklist (to be filled by reviewers)

• Feature or bugfix MUST have appropriate tests (unit, integration, e2e)
• Add the qa/skip-qa label if the PR doesn't need to be tested during QA.
• If you need to backport this PR to another branch, you can add the backport/<branch-name> label to the PR and it will automatically open a backport PR once this one is merged

[datadog-datadog-prod-us1]

✅ Tests

🎉 All green!

❄️ No new flaky tests detected
🧪 All tests passed

_{This comment will be updated automatically if new data arrives.
🔗 Commit SHA: c866f57 | Docs | Datadog PR Page | Was this helpful? Give us feedback!}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.14286% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.08%. Comparing base (3ffe999) to head (c866f57).

Additional details and impacted files

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[zoedt]

if we're adding a new flag - here's a pr with other stuff to update with this !
https://github.com/DataDog/integrations-core/pull/18099/files

also, uncertain how clear to the customer how clear this may be 🤔 may need to riff on this one a bit

[dplepage-dd]

I'm mildly surprised that we pick up the change in license here despite not changing the version of orjson.

[garrison-stauffer]

I've got no idea why we caught this, my guess is that it was just unlucky timing

[dplepage-dd]

When do we expect to have different devices with the same Cisco DN (i.e. when would anyone not want this config flag set)?

[garrison-stauffer]

When do we expect to have different devices with the same Cisco DN (i.e. when would anyone not want this config flag set)?

@dplepage-dd as far as I understand, the Cisco DN should be truly unique; my reason for pushing this as a flag is that I'm largely just concerned about what to do if that assumption is wrong. E.g. customers start upgrading and it's breaking their topology + devices. My plan was to add metrics to this w/ the flag, and we can evaluate on a follow-up release to see if it seems safe to delete the check entirely