Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output

Martin, Lada, et al,

While I don’t think we need additional annotations that Joe had prototyped
(at least not as the default), I strongly believe we need to keep the ‘@‘
and ‘/‘ in the tree output for schema mount. While the former enhancement
provided details, the schema mount tree designations are every bit as
important as knowing, for example, whether or not a schema leaf is a
presence node. 

Thanks,
Acee 

On 9/15/17, 9:56 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <acee@cisco.com> wrote:

>+1 - Also it is hard enough to format the tree output to fit in a draft
>w/o further annotations (even with —-tree-line-length).
>Thanks,
>Acee
>
>
>On 9/15/17, 6:21 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka"
><netmod-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of lhotka@nic.cz> wrote:
>
>>Andy Bierman píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 08:43 -0700:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to
>>>remember.
>>> The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little
>>>symbols
>>> to remember them all.
>>
>>I agree.
>>
>>Lada
>>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Joe Clarke <jclarke@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> > I've been hacking on pyang, and I changed tree.py to add the enum
>>>values
>>> > for enumeration types and identiyref bases for identityref types.
>>>Here
>>> > is an example:
>>> > 
>>> > module: yang-catalog
>>> >     +--rw catalog
>>> >        +--rw modules
>>> >        |  +--rw module* [name revision organization]
>>> >        |     +--rw name                     yang:yang-identifier
>>> >        |     +--rw revision                 union
>>> >        |     +--rw organization             string
>>> >        |     +--rw ietf
>>> >        |     |  +--rw ietf-wg?   string
>>> >        |     +--rw namespace                inet:uri
>>> >        |     +--rw schema?                  inet:uri
>>> >        |     +--rw generated-from?          enumeration [mib, code,
>>> > not-applicable, native]
>>> >        |     +--rw maturity-level?          enumeration [ratified,
>>> > adopted, initial, not-applicable]
>>> > ...
>>> >                                +--rw protocols
>>> >                                |  +--rw protocol* [name]
>>> >                                |     +--rw name
>>> > identityref -> protocol
>>> > ...
>>> > 
>>> > My questions are:
>>> > 
>>> > 1. Is this useful?
>>> > 
>>> > 2. If so, can this be added to pyang (happy to submit a PR) and
>>> > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams?
>>> > 
>>> > 3. What changes to the output format would you recommend?
>>> > 
>>> > Thanks.
>>> > 
>>> > Joe
>>> > 
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > netmod mailing list
>>> > netmod@ietf.org
>>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> netmod@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>-- 
>>Ladislav Lhotka
>>Head, CZ.NIC Labs
>>PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>netmod mailing list
>>netmod@ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>