Re: [netmod] Quirky tree diagrams

[Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]>]

Jernej Tuljak <[e-mail]> wrote:
> What about inner groupings? Are inner groupings supposed to be
> displayed if top-level ones are?

RFC 8340 only specifies the format for top-level groupings; i.e.,
inline groupings are not displayed separately in the tree diagram.


/martin


> If so, how? RFC7895 (YANG library
> module) is an example - if you choose to display but not to expand
> groupings, you may get "+---u"'s that refer to groupings which may
> never be part of the diagram.
> 
> Jernej
> 
> 
> On 23/10/2018 16:11, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Jernej Tuljak <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> am I reading RFC8340 correctly by assuming "input" and "output" nodes
> >> are not to be part of tree diagrams and that instead input/output
> >> parameters are now children to the "rpc" or "action" node,
> >> distinguished solely via -w/ro flags?
> > I hope not, or that was not the intention anyway.
> >
> >>    rpcs:
> >>      +---x get-schema
> >>         +---w identifier! string
> >>         +---w version?    string
> >>         +---w format?     identityref
> >>         +--ro data?
> > pyang outputs
> >
> >      +---x get-schema
> >         +---w input
> >         |  +---w identifier    string
> >         |  +---w version?      string
> >         |  +---w format?       identityref
> >         +--ro output
> >            +--ro data?   <anyxml>
> >
> >
> >> Only "input parameters" and "output parameters" are mentioned, which
> >> seems to suggest data node children of "input" and "output", but not
> >> themselves. It also says nothing about which flag they receive, if
> >> they are intended to appear.
> > Yes I can see how this could be clarified.
> >
> >
> > /martin
>