-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 658
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Correct typo in protocol-name description #1185
Correct typo in protocol-name description #1185
Conversation
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ revision "2018-11-21" { | |||
on in the local network instance. The string | |||
must match one of /network-instances/ | |||
network-instance/protocols/ | |||
protocol/identifier in the local network | |||
protocol/name in the local network |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The typo correction is correct however it's worth pointing out that these constructs are heavily relying on description statements to describe the intent vs. formulating proper model restrictions to enforce existence of these list keys within a local NI context.
PR as-is LGTM but this modeling should be reworked as a subsequent issue as I'm noticing now.
It requires implementations to have to build special logic outside of the schema that can provide inconsistencies. This identityref allows for ANY protocol type to be referenced legally and any unbound string for the name. Maybe the grouping should not be so loose especially when there is only 1 current usage
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Anything I can do to help it? I am implementer, and I needed this ambiguous point resolved. I would of course always welcome more clarity on the schema level, but for now correct description is better than nothing. I would prefer to keep an issue of matching against technically unbound space of potential protocol names separate.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That's why I said this LGTM as-is.... should not block this PR
I'd suggest proposing a separate PR to rework solving restrictions/relationships in the modeling vs. description stmts post this merge (as that will take slightly longer to likely come to consensus)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM
/gcbrun |
No major YANG version changes in commit fb2af06 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You will need to increment the 'patch' version:
ie:
ext:openconfig-version "0.1.3";
Description stated that this leaf should match identifier of a protocol, but it should actually match name of a protocol. Fixes: openconfig#1184
a4d8573
to
839183c
Compare
Thank you, done. |
/gcbrun |
Description stated that this leaf should match identifier of a protocol, but it should actually match name of a protocol.
Fixes: #1184
Change Scope
Comment-only change preventing misinterpretation of the leaf meaning.