Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Correct typo in protocol-name description #1185

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

qm2k
Copy link

@qm2k qm2k commented Sep 18, 2024

Description stated that this leaf should match identifier of a protocol, but it should actually match name of a protocol.

Fixes: #1184

Change Scope

Comment-only change preventing misinterpretation of the leaf meaning.

@qm2k qm2k requested a review from a team as a code owner September 18, 2024 21:28
@@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ revision "2018-11-21" {
on in the local network instance. The string
must match one of /network-instances/
network-instance/protocols/
protocol/identifier in the local network
protocol/name in the local network
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The typo correction is correct however it's worth pointing out that these constructs are heavily relying on description statements to describe the intent vs. formulating proper model restrictions to enforce existence of these list keys within a local NI context.

PR as-is LGTM but this modeling should be reworked as a subsequent issue as I'm noticing now.

It requires implementations to have to build special logic outside of the schema that can provide inconsistencies. This identityref allows for ANY protocol type to be referenced legally and any unbound string for the name. Maybe the grouping should not be so loose especially when there is only 1 current usage

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Anything I can do to help it? I am implementer, and I needed this ambiguous point resolved. I would of course always welcome more clarity on the schema level, but for now correct description is better than nothing. I would prefer to keep an issue of matching against technically unbound space of potential protocol names separate.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's why I said this LGTM as-is.... should not block this PR

I'd suggest proposing a separate PR to rework solving restrictions/relationships in the modeling vs. description stmts post this merge (as that will take slightly longer to likely come to consensus)

@dplore
Copy link
Member

dplore commented Sep 19, 2024

/gcbrun

@OpenConfigBot
Copy link

No major YANG version changes in commit a4d8573

Copy link
Member

@dplore dplore left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You will need to increment the 'patch' version:

ie:

ext:openconfig-version "0.1.3";

Description stated that this leaf should match identifier of a protocol, but it should actually match name of a protocol.

Fixes: openconfig#1184
@qm2k qm2k force-pushed the issue1184_protocol-name_description branch from a4d8573 to 839183c Compare September 19, 2024 06:35
@qm2k
Copy link
Author

qm2k commented Sep 19, 2024

You will need to increment the 'patch' version:

ie:

ext:openconfig-version "0.1.3";

Thank you, done.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
Status: No status
4 participants