Re: [netmod] tree diagrams - flags

[Juergen Schoenwaelder <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:36:29AM +0100, Martin Bjorklund wrote:

> > I think a better usage of two letter flags would have been this (since
> > it more naturally aligns with what the YANG definition says):
> > 
> >   <flags> is one of:
> >     ct  for configuration data
> >     cf  for non-configuration data
> >     x-  for rpcs and actions
> >     xi  for rpc or action input
> >     xo  for rpc or action output
> >     n-  for notifications
> >     nt  for notification tree (this is I think the term 7950 uses)
> 
> I'm fine with this, but perhaps use "no" for notification data - "t"
> means "true" in "ct".

I once had nd (notification data) but then in the last moment moved
to nt since 7950 uses the term notification tree...
 
> Also, in a grouping like this:
> 
>  grouping my-grouping {
>     leaf param { type string; }
>   }
> 
> pyang prints this as:
> 
>   my-grouping
>       +---- param?   string
> 
> i.e., w/o any flags.
>

This makes sense, it just needs to get documented...

> > (And I think the oops leafs should have triggered an error.)
> 
> They did.  To stderr.

Oops, my fault.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: [phone]         Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany
Fax:   [phone]         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>