Michael, Comments inline.
> On 5 Aug 2022, at 01:01, Michael Richardson <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thank you for very much for the reply. > > Jan Lindblad <[email protected]> wrote: >> I had a look at your test example. The example is invalid, but pyang >> fails to detect the error and overwrites some internal structures, with >> the result below. The root cause of the problem is this: > > ... > >> Each one of the two uses statement brings in a "container voucher" >> (with partly different content) at this point in the schema. That is an >> attempt at a duplicate definition of voucher, which is an error. > > okay, so it partly works, which is an error, and I'll see if I can make that > into a test case for pyang. Very good. > BUT: > The goal is exactly to be able to combine two extensions to RFC8366 into a > new module that has both extensions. Is there another way to do this? > > Puting them into two containers does not accomplish the goal, because now you > have two expires-on, ... Of course. I just added the containers to show that pyang could understand the modules once the modeling error was removed. Just to clarify what was going on. >> Pyang >> misses this, and overwrites one voucher object with the next, losing >> some of the content. > >> By placing the two uses statements into separate containers, pyang is >> able to successfully make a tree: > > ... > >> Normally in YANG, it wouldn't be hard to to let modules "B" and "C" >> augment module "A" independently. But here you are working with >> groupings in such a way that both "B" and "C" build up a complete >> grouping with everything in "A". When "D" tries to use both "B" and >> "C", there is inevitably unwanted duplication. > >> If instead, "B" and "C" >> just defined their little contributions, "D" could import groupings >> from "A", "B" and "C" and compose them as desired. > > The reason I am asking this question now, and proposing this example now, is > so that if there is a better way to build "B" and "C" then we need to know > about that *now* > > I see that you have proposed a different way, which I will attempt to work > through. Fortunately, we still have time to fix some things. Feel free to reach out offline for discussion and review. Best Regards, /jan _______________________________________________ Anima mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/anima
