Re: [netmod] yanglint and implemented versus imported YANG modules

[Ladislav Lhotka <[e-mail]>]

Radek Krejčí <[e-mail]> writes:

> Hi Lada,
>
> Dne 7.3.2017 v 10:30 Ladislav Lhotka napsal(a):
>> Robert Wilton <[e-mail]> writes:
>>
>>> Hi William,
>>>
>>> I think that what yanglint is doing here is sane, i.e. I think that its 
>>> interpretation/split between imported vs implemented modules is 
>>> supported by the YANG RFC.
>>>
>>> However, for validation purposes it seems that it would be useful if 
>>> yanglint had an option to assume that all imported modules are 
>>> implicitly implemented without requiring them to be explicitly
>>> specified.
>> This will fail if a module just wants to use a grouping or typedef from
>> an imported module but not data nodes that may also be there. 
>
> but does it affect the validation of the module?

Potentially it could - for example, the imported module may have some
default content with "must" statements. Practically, it shouldn't be a
problem most of the time.

>
>> It is exactly the problem that I mentioned in the discussion about
>> NETMOD charter: we need a way to specify a complete data model. In my
>> YANG/I-D development environment [1], a hello XML file is used for this
>> purpose.
>>
>> Lada
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/llhotka/YANG-I-D
>
> we have this feature in TODO for yanglint, but I'm afraid that it does

Now it's better to use yang-library, as Yangson does (but maybe this is
your plan, right?).

> not solve the issue - even now the script can read some additional
> file with the specification which modules are expected to be loaded
> before the module being validated (i.e. which imported module is
> supposed to be implemented). The root of the issue is that this
> information is not part of the importing module itself.

This would be one option, otherwise this information can also be
included in the document separately as metadata - validation
instructions. This could BTW also solve the issue of what modules are
supposed to be validated.

Lada

>
> Radek
>
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Rob
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/03/2017 16:44, William Lupton wrote:
>>>> All,
>>>>
>>>> This message arose from a [e-mail] 
>>>> <mailto:[e-mail]> “draft-ietf-pim-igmp-mld-yang-02.txt: 
>>>> YANG compilation isuse” (sic) thread 
>>>> <https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/yang-multicast/current/threads.html#00232> initiated 
>>>> by Benoit.
>>>>
>>>> I thought it would be useful for NETMOD to see the part of the 
>>>> discussion that relates to implemented versus imported YANG modules.
>>>>
>>>>  1. Benoit Claise reported this warning:
>>>>       * warn: Schema node "ietf-ip:ipv4" not found
>>>>         (/ietf-interfaces:interfaces/ietf-interfaces:interface[ietf-interfaces:name
>>>>         = current()]/ietf-ip:ipv4)
>>>>  2. Radek Krejčí replied:
>>>>       * These warnings are printed because in yanglint, until
>>>>         explicitly stated, the imported modules (such as
>>>>         ietf-interfaces and ietf-ip), are supposed to be only
>>>>         imported, not implemented. The data nodes in imported schemas
>>>>         are not available, which is the reason of these warnings.
>>>>  3. William Lupton (that’s me!) asked / commented:
>>>>       * Why are the complaints only about ip:ipv4 (etc) and not about
>>>>         if:interfaces (etc), which are also referenced in the must
>>>>         statements?
>>>>       * This makes it hard for an automated tool (such as Benoit’s)
>>>>         because it needs to know which other YANG files to process in
>>>>         addition to the “file of interest”.
>>>>  4. Radek Krejčí replied:
>>>>       * According to RFC 7950, sec 5.6.6 (3rd paragraph) [ED: 5.6.5?],
>>>>         when an implemented module augments another module
>>>>         (ietf-interfaces), the augmented module MUST be also
>>>>         implemented. So libyang automatically changes the augmented
>>>>         module from imported to the implemented. The same rule applies
>>>>         also in case of referring a module in path (leafref) and
>>>>         by deviating a module. But it does not apply when a module
>>>>         data is used in must or when conditions. That's the reason why
>>>>         it complains just about ietf-ip and not about ietf-interfaces.
>>>>       * YANG actually does not provide a way to specify that a
>>>>         particular import is also expected to be implemented.
>>>>         Therefore, libyang needs some help with setting modules
>>>>         implemented - all the explicitly loaded modules are supposed
>>>>         to be implemented, if the module is just implicitly loaded
>>>>         from the search directory and user did not expressed that it
>>>>         is supposed to be implemented, it is kept only imported to
>>>>         provide groupings or type definitions
>>>>  5. Benoit Claise asked (referring to my reference to automated tools):
>>>>       * Would it be possible to improve the warning (and the related
>>>>         test, by testing implemented instead of import), basically
>>>>         telling that the module itself is fine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I’m interested to know that NETMOD thinks about this distinction 
>>>> between implemented versus imported (in the absence of any instance 
>>>> documents). I guess my (maybe naive) view is that if all I’m doing is 
>>>> checking for errors in my YANG model then I don’t care about this. If 
>>>> my YANG is good I want to see no warnings or errors, and if it’s bad 
>>>> then I want to be told this (and why).
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> William
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> netmod mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> netmod mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
>
>

-- 
Ladislav Lhotka, CZ.NIC Labs
PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67