Thank you for very much for the reply.
Jan Lindblad 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 o
Jan Lindblad wrote:
> I'll make a sketch here, let me know if you have questions.
Thank you.
So I think we have our augments slightly wrong, and maybe we have it wrong in
RFC8995 too, and I'll have to get fully caffeinated and check it all out.
--
Michael Richardson. o O ( IPv6 IøT cons
Steffen,
I'll make a sketch here, let me know if you have questions.
One ("maximum groupings") way of dealing with this would be:
module A {
grouping a-base-plate { ... }
}
module B {
import A { prefix a; }
grouping b-secret-sauce { ... }
grouping b-mounted-in-a {
uses a:a-base
Hi Jan,
Thank you for the test.
From: Anima On Behalf Of Jan Lindblad
Sent: Donnerstag, 4. August 2022 12:23
To: Michael Richardson
Cc: an...@ietf.org; netmod@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Anima] [netmod] mcr's YANG question raised during the ANIMA WG
session
Michael,
I had a look at your test exa
Michael,
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:
module ietf-voucher-D {
...
uses b:voucher-request-prm-grouping {
augment "voucher
