Re: [netmod] RPC input parameter definition order (uses augment)

On Mon, Apr 4, 2022 at 4:48 AM Jernej Tuljak <jernej.tuljak@mg-soft.si>
wrote:

> On 01/04/2022 15:49, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2022 at 4:24 AM Kent Watsen <kent@watsen.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Jernej,
>>
>> > RFC7950, 7.14.4. says:
>> >
>> >    Input parameters are encoded as child XML elements to the rpc node's
>> >    XML element, in the same order as they are defined within the "input"
>> >    statement.
>> >
>> > For the following model:
>> >
>> > module b {
>> >   namespace "b:uri";
>> >   prefix b;
>> >
>> >   grouping params {
>> >     container params {
>> >       leaf x {
>> >         type string;
>> >       }
>> >     }
>> >   }
>> >
>> >   rpc foo {
>> >     input {
>> >       uses params {
>> >         augment params {
>> >           leaf y {
>> >             type string;
>> >           }
>> >         }
>> >       }
>> >     }
>> >   }
>> > }
>> >
>> > If both "leaf" data nodes are instantiated (XML encoding) as part of
>> <rpc> for "foo", does <x> come before or after <y> (in document order)?
>>
>> Augmented-in nodes come after other nodes.
>>
>>
>
> Maybe this is an implementation convention, but the RFC says they are
> encoded in any order.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc7950#section-7.17.2
>
>
> You are referring to this:
>
>    When a node is augmented, the augmenting child nodes are encoded as
>    subelements to the augmented node, in any order.
>
> This implies interleaving of augmenting and non-augmenting child nodes
> within "input" parameters for XML encoding?
>
>
There is no data node order defined except in 4 places:
  - rpc or action input (just the child nodes or all descendants?)
  - rpc or action output  (just the child nodes or all descendants?)
  - ordered by user applies to list and leaf-list entries
    (not the nodes within a list, just the list entries themselves)
  - list key leafs are encoded in key-stmt order, before other list child
nodes.
    This is true even if the list is affected by previous 3 rules (but this
is not specified)

It is not clear if the phrase "in any order" (appearing about a dozen times)
is in addition to these rules or instead of them.

What about an 'anyxml' or  'anydata' for a <config> node?
Since it is a terminal node, it could be interpreted that it is ordered,
but it is converted to regular nodes when applied to a datastore.

Andy

Jernej
>
>
> I’ve always wished there were a way to specify where they’re placed, for
>> readability, but it’s too inconsequential to raise as an issue here.
>
>
> There is no canonical order defined for any schema nodes.
> There is no order at all defined for top-level or augmenting schema nodes.
>
>
>>
>> > Jernej
>>
>> Kent
>>
>
> Andy
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>> netmod mailing list
>> netmod@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>
>
>