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

[Robert Varga <[e-mail]>]

On 05/04/2022 09:14, Jernej Tuljak wrote:
>> The presence of the intermediate grouping is a pure module-internal 
>> modeling detail. I believe introducing/removing the grouping is a 
>> non-breaking change as per RFC6020 (if memory serves right).
> 
> Module updating rules state this:
> 
>     o  Any set of data definition nodes may be replaced with another set
>        of syntactically and semantically equivalent nodes.  For example,
>        a set of leafs may be replaced by a "uses" statement of a grouping
>        with the same leafs.
> 
> and this:
> 
>     In statements that have any data definition statements as
>     substatements, those data definition substatements MUST NOT be
>     reordered.
> 
> Can you state that your second example may be rewritten into your first 
> one while retaining semantic equivalence? For the second example, it is 
> clear that XML encoding for that container imposes ordering on <bar> and 
> <foo> (in that order), for the first, this is no longer true.

I stand corrected, I forgot about the second statement and also the 
special-case of RPC input/output:

>    The container's child nodes are encoded as subelements to the
>    container element.  If the container defines RPC input or output
>    parameters, these subelements are encoded in the same order as they
>    are defined within the "container" statement.  Otherwise, the
>    subelements are encoded in any order.

Regards,
Robert