That's how ARIA implements it right now. I consider the TOSCA 1.0 spec on "imports" to be an error because it contradicts the rest of the document, so we have always used the correction as it now appears in 1.2. This is not the only place where we had to resolve contradictions, by any means. :)
I'm getting very close to finishing work the complete parser test suite, so it will give us a good centralized place to check and confirm grammar. By the way, take care to mention TOSCA specifically when you refer to versions. "YAML 1.1" refers to the YAML spec. (We actually use YAML 1.2.) On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 1:06 AM, D Jayachandran <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi Tal, > > Are we looking at the below syntax for plugins, with the changes in YAML > 1.1 > > Imports: > - file: openstack-1.0 > repository: plugins > - file: kubernetes-1.0 > repository: plugins > > Regards, > DJ > -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Baillargeon [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:24 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: RE: Contribution for https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/ARIA-118 > > Hi > YAML1.0 spec is incorrect for import definitions. > YAML1.2 spec has updated the import grammar as follows. > It will be great for ARIA to support parts of the YAML1.2 spec soon > especially for areas that are corrected. > > From YAML 1.2 spec: > 3.5.8.2 Grammar > Import definitions have one the following grammars: > 3.5.8.2.1 Single-line grammar: > imports: > - <file_URI_1> > - <file_URI_2> > 3.5.8.2.2 Multi-line grammar > imports: > - file: <file_URI> > repository: <repository_name> > namespace_uri: <definition_namespace_uri> > namespace_prefix: <definition_namespace_prefix> > > -Steve B > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tal Liron [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:39 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Contribution for https://issues.apache.org/ > jira/browse/ARIA-118 > > So, this is one of the cases where the spec seems to be wrong: the > <import_name> is probably a mistake. None of the other examples in the spec > have it, nor do we see it in other TOSCA examples. > > Note that if we needed an <import_name> than it would even have to be for > the short form. So: > > imports: > - importname1: myfile.yaml > - importname2: otherfile.yaml > - importname3: > file: lastfile.yaml > > The above seems wrong (also, what role does the import name have?). In > ARIA we treated this as an error in the spec, so we do not have the import > name. > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 8:52 AM, D Jayachandran < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Hi Tal, > > > > As per the grammer in the SPEC, seems the import should take a > > <import_name>. Your example dint have a <import_name> but started with > > respository as such. > > > > <import_name>: > > > > file: <file_URI> > > > > repository: <repository_name> > > > > namespace_uri: <definition_namespace_uri> > > > > namespace_prefix: <definition_namespace_prefix> > > > > > > With your example can we have multiple repositories ? > > > > > > Regards, > > DJ > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2017 9:31 PM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Contribution for https://issues.apache.org/ > > jira/browse/ARIA-118 > > > > I do suggest the repository, because it seems like the more TOSCA way > > to do this. These are special imports that are not part of the CSAR > > but rather provided in a special way by ARIA. A special repository > > seems to be the right way to handle this. > > > > On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 2:40 AM, D Jayachandran < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi Tal, > > > > > > I had a space between the plugin and filename. The correct one would > > > like this. > > > > > > import > > > - plugin:openstack-1.0 > > > > > > By this way it won't conflict with YAML convention. Do you still > > > suggest to use the repository conventions ? > > > > > > Regards, > > > DJ > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:[email protected]] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 9:38 PM > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: Contribution for https://issues.apache.org/ > > > jira/browse/ARIA-118 > > > > > > I think the format you suggest is awkward in YAML. Because ":" is > > > reserved, you would have to wrap the string in quotes: > > > > > > imports: > > > - this/is/a/string/import.yaml > > > - this is also a string .yaml > > > - "plugins: but here we have to add quotes because of the colon.yaml" > > > > > > The TOSCA way to handle name ambiguity is to use a repository in the > > > long-form of the import. What we can do is create a built-in > > > repository called "plugins". So it would look like this: > > > > > > imports: > > > - mytypes.yaml > > > - repository: plugins > > > file: openstack.yaml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 3:49 AM, D Jayachandran < > > > [email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Tal, > > > > > > > > With respect to this JIRA issue. > > > > I would like to contribute on the first part, which is specific to > > > > plugin implementation. > > > > > > > > " If a plugin contained its plugin.yaml as part of its wagon > > > > archive, then once installed, users could import the yaml file > > > > more easily using a notation such as plugins/openstack.yaml (or > > > > perhaps openstack.yaml, having the import mechanism iterate over > > > > plugins looking for this resource file or so)" > > > > > > > > Instead of "plugins/openstack.yaml", I would like to suggest the > > > > following > > > > "plugins: openstack-<version>" > > > > Please let me know if this fine with you. > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > DJ > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Tal Liron [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2017 6:24 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: Re: Contribution for https://issues.apache.org/ > > > > jira/browse/ARIA-118 > > > > > > > > It's unassigned, so I don't see why not! > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 7:41 AM, D Jayachandran < > > > > [email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any plans on working on this JIRA issue ? > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARIA-118 > > > > > Can we contribute on this ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > DJ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
