Hi,
I ran a test on a module with these 2 statements:
container top {
list mand-list {
key name;
min-elements 1;
leaf name { type string; }
leaf-list vlan-id { type uint32; }
}
}
choice top-ch {
default A;
case A {
list mand-list {
key
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:51 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
> >
> > > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for something
> > > > like this:
> > >
Andy Bierman wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
>
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for something
> > > like this:
> > >
> > >container top {
> > > list foo {
> > > min-elements 1;
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:44 AM, Ladislav Lhotka wrote:
>
> > On 26 May 2016, at 15:29, Andy Bierman wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund
> wrote:
> > Andy Bierman wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for someth
> On 26 May 2016, at 15:29, Andy Bierman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for something
> > like this:
> >
> >container top {
> > list foo {
> >
On Thu, May 26, 2016 at 6:26 AM, Martin Bjorklund wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for something
> > like this:
> >
> >container top {
> > list foo {
> > min-elements 1;
> > ...
> > }
> >}
> >
>
Andy Bierman wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for something
> like this:
>
>container top {
> list foo {
> min-elements 1;
> ...
> }
>}
>
> A customer is saying this is incorrect. RFC6020bis is confusing on this
> issue.
Hi,
Our compiler generates a "top-level mandatory" warning for something
like this:
container top {
list foo {
min-elements 1;
...
}
}
A customer is saying this is incorrect. RFC6020bis is confusing on this
issue.
Terms::
o mandatory node: A mandatory nod
