Feat(eos_designs): Add support to add access-groups on l3-interfaces through network-services

[laxmikantchintakindi]

Change Summary

Add support to add access-groups on l3-interfaces through network-services

Related Issue(s)

Fixes #3534
Only address the L3 interfaec but not the SVIs as it was already implemented in #4096.

Component(s) name

arista.avd.eos_designs

Proposed changes

Initial ask

It would be nice when defining a L3 / SVI in network services to also be able to add an access group right there. That was the tags take care of only adding the L3/SVI as it already does but also only add the access group to the devices that need it.

This PR covers the L3 interfaces part in network services - SVIs was done in #4096

How to test

Checklist

User Checklist

• N/A

Repository Checklist

• My code has been rebased from devel before I start
• I have read the CONTRIBUTING document.
• My change requires a change to the documentation and documentation have been updated accordingly.
• I have updated molecule CI testing accordingly. (check the box if not applicable)

[github-actions]

Review docs on Read the Docs

To test this pull request:

# Create virtual environment for this testing below the current directory
python -m venv test-avd-pr-4163
# Activate the virtual environment
source test-avd-pr-4163/bin/activate
# Install all requirements including PyAVD
pip install "pyavd[ansible] @ git+https://github.com/laxmikantchintakindi/avd.git@access_groups#subdirectory=python-avd" --force
# Install Ansible collection
ansible-galaxy collection install git+https://github.com/laxmikantchintakindi/avd.git#/ansible_collections/arista/avd/,access_groups --force
# Optional: Install AVD examples
cd test-avd-pr-4163
ansible-playbook arista.avd.install_examples

[gmuloc]

So the PR only partially fix the issue as it is asking for l3_interfaces and SVIs and the PR currently implements only l3_interfaces.

I feel like the code to compute the access_list is a bit of a repeat from the one we have for l3_interfaces under node but maybe there was no easy way to reuse it?

Otherwise it looks good to me if we accept the fact that it is a partial fix.

Can you please remove the comments from the schema?

[github-actions]

This pull request has conflicts, please resolve those before we can evaluate the pull request.

[github-actions]

Conflicts have been resolved. A maintainer will review the pull request shortly.

Many changes since this review.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
2 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud