I'm not entirely sure what you mean... here's a reply according to what I understand.
In most cases there is no ambiguity because the language is YAML-based. A dict in YAML has unique keys, so it follows that definitions would be unique. (We discussed the issue of importing in a previous thread, and opened a JIRA for it.) There is one curious exception: sequenced lists. In node templates, you define requirements as a sequenced list, meaning that you are allowed to specify the same requirement name multiple times. This makes perfect sense, and matches the "occurrences" field in the the node type. However ... at the node type the requirement definition is *also* a sequenced list. There is no technical reason for this: I believe TOSCA defined it this to make it match the node template style, though in my personal opinion this was a wrong choice because by definition the requirement is unique per node type. ARIA treats the requirements sequenced list in the node type the same way the YAML parser treats keys in a dict: if there is a key of the same name, it will overwrite a previous key of that name. On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:04 PM, Steve Baillargeon < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi > The TOSCA YAML Profile is not 100% clear about duplicate definitions names. > What are the guidelines for ARIA? > > Should all definitions names be unique across definitions "classes" > (attributes, properties, requirements, capabilities,...) within a given > node type definition? > Or is it OK to only have unique definitions names within a given > definition "class"? > > Regards > Steve B > >
