Re: [Taps] YANG updates

[Theresa Enghardt <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jake,

thanks for the updates!

One question and an one answer inline:

On 23.09.19 19:16, Holland, Jake wrote:
> 1. Tooling update
>
> I cleaned up the make process for the yang module draft a bit, while
> still keeping the structure of importing external files + automated
> validation.
>
> This version only requires pyang and rsync to build if you're not
> validating, and adds in a requirement for the yanglint executable
> (included with libyang), but only if you use 'make yanglint' or
> set "VALIDATE_YANG=1" as an environment variable.  In return, it
> removes my extra c file that linked to libyang.

Trying to make sure I understand this correctly, as I'm not too familiar
with the tooling yet:

By default, when I build the draft, it still reads the .yang and then
dumps the XML and the tree structure, but it does not validate the
model, right?

To test, I changed an identifier in the model, and the tool did complain
about an unknown identifier -- but it still built the draft as .txt and
.html. That's the intended behavior, right?

And to validate the model means that it won't build if there's an error
in the model?

As I have to use "make yanglint" to validate, does that mean yanglint is
the same as validating? I thought "linting" was something else.

"make" works for me, but "make yanglint" doesn't. It complains that
there's no target called "yanglint". I'm probably missing something
really obvious here... but could you give me a pointer, please?


> […]
>
> 4. I think in Montreal, Tommy suggested to me offline that I transfer the
> ietf-taps-yang repo to https://github.com/ietf-tapswg.
>
> I'll go ahead and do that if I get a couple of "yes, go ahead"s, but I
> thought I'd check first, because right now I think I don't have consensus,
> so much as a vague memory of a mumbled suggestion that I'm only 70%
> certain I understood correctly.  I think it makes sense, but I don't want
> to surprise anyone or clutter things up if people believe it needs work
> before going there.
>
> So does it sound right to just transfer the repo now?

I'd be fine with that, as it would make PRs easier for me. ;)


Best,
Theresa