Re: [netmod] ?==?utf-8?q? Question on when-construction involving identities not detected as an error during module compilation

[Michal Vaško <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Friday, May 18, 2018 12:16 CEST, Martin Bjorklund <[e-mail]> wrote: 
 
> Hi,
> 
> "Bogaert, Bart (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > We have a question on YANG module compilation.  Assume the following
> > model:
> > 
> > module test-feat-compile {
> >   yang-version 1.1;
> >   namespace "http://www.example.com/test-feat-compile";
> >   prefix "tfc";
> > 
> >   identity failure-reason {
> >     description
> >       "The reason a failure occurred.";
> >   }
> > 
> >   identity no-failure {
> >     description
> >       "No failure has occurred.";
> >   }
> > 
> >   identity general-error {
> >     base failure-reason;
> >     description
> >       "A general error occurred.";
> >   }
> > 
> >   container failure {
> >     description
> >       "Objects associated with a failure.";
> > 
> >     leaf failure-reason {
> >       type identityref {
> >         base failure-reason;
> >       }
> >       description
> >         "The reason the failure occurred.";
> >     }
> > 
> >     leaf failure-string {
> >       when "../failure-reason != 'no-failure'" {
> >         description
> >           "Only valid when there is a failure.";
> >       }
> >       type string;
> >       description
> >         "A text string indicating the reason for the failure when
> >          either no defined reason exists or additional information
> >          is available beyond the definition of the reason.";
> >     }
> >   }
> > }
> > 
> > Looking at the when clause there is something obviously wrong (at
> > least this is how I see it):
> > 
> >   *   The leaf 'failure-reason' is of type identityref with 'failure-reason'
> >       as base
> >   *   Identity 'no-failure' does not have 'failure-reason' as base (see it
> >       as having been forgotten)
> > Question is: shouldn't this be reported at compile time?  Pyang
> > doesn't and the other compiler we use doesn't report this either.
> > 
> > Even when 'no-failure' is modified into some arbitrary string it is
> > still accepted while this arbitrary string is not defined anywhere as
> > identity.
> > 
> > And when it comes to the correct syntax, RFC 7950 states (section
> > 9.1.3) that identities in must and when statements should be prefixed
> > (so tfc:no-failure in this case).  Also this "violation" passes.
> > 
> > So: what can we expect to be checked at compile time in this case?
> > Now you can only detect these anomalies when using a system supporting
> > the modules and detect that things do not work as intended.  It would
> > be better to have these erroneous constructions being detected at
> > compile time.  If there is something in the RFC that allows the
> > compiler to behave as it does now it would be good to know.
> 
> Strictly speaking, the "when" expressions are not erroneous; they are
> proper XPath expressions that happen to always return "false".
> 
> A good compiler could detect this and produce a warning, but it would
> be incorrect to flag this as an error.

Exactly and you can try using yanglint(1) from libyang [1], which prints both problems you mentioned as warnings.

Kind regards,
Michal Vasko

[1] https://github.com/cesnet/libyang