Hi all, I personally like to keep the ‘@’ and the '/' in the tree output. As we know that a tree may not catch all what a module is trying to do, but it can help users to quickly get an idea of the module's overall architecture etc. The '@' and the '/' is very helpful in order to understand all the mounting points.
Thanks, Yingzhen -----Original Message----- From: netmod [mailto:netmod-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Acee Lindem (acee) Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 9:30 AM To: Ladislav Lhotka <lho...@nic.cz>; netmod@ietf.org; Martin Bjorklund <m...@tail-f.com> Subject: Re: [netmod] Proposal to enhance the YANG tree output Martin, Lada, et al, While I don’t think we need additional annotations that Joe had prototyped (at least not as the default), I strongly believe we need to keep the ‘@‘ and ‘/‘ in the tree output for schema mount. While the former enhancement provided details, the schema mount tree designations are every bit as important as knowing, for example, whether or not a schema leaf is a presence node. Thanks, Acee On 9/15/17, 9:56 AM, "Acee Lindem (acee)" <a...@cisco.com> wrote: >+1 - Also it is hard enough to format the tree output to fit in a draft >w/o further annotations (even with —-tree-line-length). >Thanks, >Acee > > >On 9/15/17, 6:21 AM, "netmod on behalf of Ladislav Lhotka" ><netmod-boun...@ietf.org on behalf of lho...@nic.cz> wrote: > >>Andy Bierman píše v Čt 14. 09. 2017 v 08:43 -0700: >>> Hi, >>> >>> >>> Actually I liked the early pyang output that was concise and easy to >>>remember. >>> The current format gets very cluttered and there are too many little >>>symbols to remember them all. >> >>I agree. >> >>Lada >> >>> >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 8:33 AM, Joe Clarke <jcla...@cisco.com> wrote: >>> > I've been hacking on pyang, and I changed tree.py to add the enum >>>values >>> > for enumeration types and identiyref bases for identityref types. >>>Here >>> > is an example: >>> > >>> > module: yang-catalog >>> > +--rw catalog >>> > +--rw modules >>> > | +--rw module* [name revision organization] >>> > | +--rw name yang:yang-identifier >>> > | +--rw revision union >>> > | +--rw organization string >>> > | +--rw ietf >>> > | | +--rw ietf-wg? string >>> > | +--rw namespace inet:uri >>> > | +--rw schema? inet:uri >>> > | +--rw generated-from? enumeration [mib, code, >>> > not-applicable, native] >>> > | +--rw maturity-level? enumeration [ratified, >>> > adopted, initial, not-applicable] >>> > ... >>> > +--rw protocols >>> > | +--rw protocol* [name] >>> > | +--rw name >>> > identityref -> protocol >>> > ... >>> > >>> > My questions are: >>> > >>> > 1. Is this useful? >>> > >>> > 2. If so, can this be added to pyang (happy to submit a PR) and >>> > draft-ietf-netmod-yang-tree-diagrams? >>> > >>> > 3. What changes to the output format would you recommend? >>> > >>> > Thanks. >>> > >>> > Joe >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > netmod mailing list >>> > netmod@ietf.org >>> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> netmod mailing list >>> netmod@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >>-- >>Ladislav Lhotka >>Head, CZ.NIC Labs >>PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>netmod mailing list >>netmod@ietf.org >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list netmod@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
