Juergen Schoenwaelder <j.schoenwael...@jacobs-university.de> wrote: > Hi, > > if we want to standardize tree diagrams, we may want to take a more > critical look at them, in particular the flags (that were created > ad-hoc and in resemblance to MIB tree diagrams). pyang --tree-help > says: > > <flags> is one of: > rw for configuration data > ro for non-configuration data > -x for rpcs and actions > -n for notifications > > This is (a) incomlete and (b) somewhat confusing since ct does not > equate to readwrite. I am attaching a sample yang file and here is the > output pyang 1.7.1 produces: > > module: tree-sample > +--rw config-true-container > | +--rw param? string > +--ro config-false-container > | +--ro value? string > +--rw inline-action > | +---x action > | +---- oops? string > | +---w input > | | +---w in? string > | +--ro output > | +--ro out? string > +--rw inline-notification > +---n notification > +---- duration? string > > rpcs: > +---x rpc > +---w input > | +---w in? string > +--ro output > | +--ro out? string > +--ro oops? string > > notifications: > +---n notification > +--ro boom? string > > I think a better usage of two letter flags would have been this (since > it more naturally aligns with what the YANG definition says): > > <flags> is one of: > ct for configuration data > cf for non-configuration data > x- for rpcs and actions > xi for rpc or action input > xo for rpc or action output > n- for notifications > nt for notification tree (this is I think the term 7950 uses)
I'm fine with this, but perhaps use "no" for notification data - "t" means "true" in "ct". Also, in a grouping like this: grouping my-grouping { leaf param { type string; } } pyang prints this as: my-grouping +---- param? string i.e., w/o any flags. > (And I think the oops leafs should have triggered an error.) They did. To stderr. /martin _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod