Agreed with Reshad that I think this is useful, especially if there are set markers in the drafts to provide extracting instance examples. On the coverage front, I think one enum and maybe even one union option might be fine (though flagging the unions is probably a good idea). Multiple choice cases should be flagged for better coverage.
Joe Cisco Confidential From: Reshad Rahman <[email protected]> Date: Friday, November 7, 2025 at 12:43 To: NetMod WG <[email protected]>, [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: [netmod] Comments on draft-cardona-claise-onion-yang-coverage-00 Hi Camilo, Benoit, As (I think) I mentioned in the meeting chat, I support this work, very useful. Often when reviewing documents containing YANG modules, I've asked myself how complete the examples are. Some authors do include minimal examples just to be able to tick the checkbox... So thanks from all YANG reviewers and YANG Doctors. I would like coverage to include more than simple calculation on leaf nodes, for example: - If a leaf is of type union, all union variants should be counted. e.g. if a module has 1 leaf node which has 2 union variants (string and int) and the example covers only 1 union variant for that leaf, IMO the coverage should be 50%. - Presence containers. I think they should be included in the calculation since they're often equivalent to "enable" flag. - Enums. Should all enum values be covered or just 1 is enough? - If a module has groupings which aren't used in the document, the coverage should include leaf nodes in the groupings (can be done by an example module which uses the groupings). Regards, Reshad.
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
