adding must substatements to RPC/Action input/output substatements -- rfc7950 #270
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
hansthienpondt
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hi @wenovus and @robshakir
Adding must substatement support on the RPC and/or Action's input/output substatements as per http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.14.2 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-7.14.3
and updated RFC references in code.
Considering there were earlier yang1.1 substatements already present in the struct, I've added the only missing one.
I did not find any specific test cases of combinations in this specific yang path, as I did not find any similar test cases on the RPC statement. Happy to define some if you think this would be necessary.