The support for satisfying a requirement according to a capability type was just added as part of https://github.com/apache/incubator-ariatosca/commit/df2b916e624719e5f77e29c1e893c55f88e15862
On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> wrote: > I think you are talking about requirements? Some of the combinations you > mention are for requirement declarations (at the node type) and some for > requirement assignments (at the node template). > > Generally speaking, ARIA intends to support 100% of the TOSCA spec, so feel > free to contribute. If a combination does not work, it is a bug. > > There is a known bug about requiring a capability without a template that > is being worked on. > > On Mon, Aug 7, 2017 at 12:01 AM, Vaishnavi K.R <vaishnavi....@ericsson.com > > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I tried the following combinations in my service template, > > > > 1. Type definition with capability type alone but node template having > > any of the following, > > * capability type alone > > * capability name alone > > * node type alone > > * node name alone > > * capability name and node name > > * capability name and node type > > * capability type and node type > > * capability type and node type > > 2. Type definition with capability type and node type > > * capability type alone > > * capability name alone > > * node type alone > > * node name alone > > * capability name and node name > > * capability name and node type > > * capability type and node type > > * capability type and node type > > > > As per the TOSCA specification, the above are valid combinations. > > > > Will ARIA support all the above ?? If so, we wish to contribute. > > > > Looking forward to your comment. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > /Vaish > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Tal Liron <t...@cloudify.co> > > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2017 10:03:18 PM > > To: dev@ariatosca.incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: TOSCA spec compliance on finding target node > > > > It indeed should *not* be required. I just verified that it you are > > correct, and a match is not made if only the capability is specified > > without a node type/template. > > > > This is a regression, because it used to work correctly. > > > > There is currently work in progress to refactor that mechanism, so I will > > add a test case to make sure the regression is fixed. > > > > See my test case and follow progress here: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-174 > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 3:28 AM, Vaishnavi K.R < > vaishnavi....@ericsson.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi ARIA folks, > > > > > > > > > I had a look at the source code of ARIA on how the target node is > > > identified based on the requirement and capability information > furnished > > in > > > the node template and its corresponding node type. But I find that only > > few > > > of the combinations are supported i.e., as per the TOSCA spec, in the > > > requirement section of a node template, the 'node' option is not > > mandatory, > > > but ARIA expects that to be present. > > > > > > > > > In my use-case, my node template has a requirement on a node which has > a > > > particular capability. So I just specify the capability type in my node > > > template under the requirement section. As ARIA expects the 'node' > option > > > to be present, this use-case fails. > > > > > > > > > So I wish to get clarified is there any specific reason for mandating > the > > > 'node' option or if TOSCA spec compliance on this target identification > > > based on the capability name or type will be supported in the future > > > versions? > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > /Vaish > > > > > >
