Absolutely. Let's also remember that TOSCA was first developed "on paper" at first without any implementation. There wasn't even any way to validate the examples other than by hand.
Things are better now that ARIA exists (and a few other TOSCA parsers), so excuses are running out... On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:48 PM, DeWayne Filppi <[email protected]> wrote: > Yeah, well in a big spec like TOSCA, I tend to go for the examples rather > than reading it cover to cover, which actually makes them more important > than the spec in a practical sense. But maybe that's just me. On the > other hand, it validates the raison d'etre of ARIA: to discover such issues > with the spec and serve as a feedback mechanism. > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > OK, baseball reference. :) > > > > Well, it's always easy to criticize. :) If we want TOSCA to be better, we > > need to better participate in the process. There is an open JIRA for ARIA > > to consolidate all our errata into a single proposal for OASIS. > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 1:00 PM, DeWayne Filppi <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > bush league == amateur hour > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Sorry, I did not understand that last comment about "bush league"! > > > > > > > > But yes, the spec is known to be flimsy and self-contradictory. In > the > > > end, > > > > we must make a choice on how to implement things in ARIA, while > taking > > > into > > > > account that other TOSCA implementations might interpret the spec > > > > differently. (Even more ideally: provide configuration options for > > ARIA's > > > > parser, so that it could better work with YAML files created for > other > > > > TOSCA implementations. We have a few of these configuration options > > > > already.) > > > > > > > > This is exactly why the current PR for ARIA-1 is important: it > > > introduces a > > > > broad test suite for TOSCA syntax and grammar, which obviously > follows > > > the > > > > interpretations we made for ARIA. But it can be run on other TOSCA > > > parsers, > > > > too, at least giving us information as to where other parsers differ > in > > > > their interpretations of the spec. > > > > > > > > I will say that our rules of thumb has generally been: 1) if a strict > > and > > > > loose interpretation are possible, choose the stricter one, and 2) > keep > > > the > > > > "spirit of the spec" in mind: object-orientation and enforcement of > the > > > > parent type contract. > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:44 PM, DeWayne Filppi < > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Wow. That is reeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaally bad and bush > > > > league. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "Examples" in the spec routinely break the syntax of the spec... > I > > > > think > > > > > > it's best not to trust them. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:40 PM, DeWayne Filppi < > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I suppose it lets you name interfaces whatever you want, which > is > > > > > > confusing > > > > > > > because of other areas of the spec. Note that there are tons > of > > > > > examples > > > > > > > in the spec without the "type" specified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:27 AM, Tal Liron <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I mentioned this to you in the previous thread: the "type" > > field > > > is > > > > > > > > required for interface definitions according to TOSCA syntax. > > So, > > > > > even > > > > > > if > > > > > > > > it's the same as what you are inheriting, you must specify > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 12:04 PM, DeWayne Filppi < > > > > > [email protected]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that the 'subclassing' problem has been resolved, > > > overriding > > > > > > > > interface > > > > > > > > > methods is breaking. Simple example: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tosca_definitions_version: tosca_simple_yaml_1_0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > imports: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - aria-1.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > node_types: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > T1: > > > > > > > > > derived_from: tosca.nodes.Root > > > > > > > > > interfaces: > > > > > > > > > Standard: > > > > > > > > > create: > > > > > > > > > implementation: > > > > > > > > > primary: i1.sh > > > > > > > > > delete: > > > > > > > > > implementation: > > > > > > > > > primary: i1.sh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The error, using Aria in the ARIA-1 branch: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Validation issues: > > > > > > > > > 2: required field "type" in > > > > > > > > > "aria_extension_tosca.simple_v1_0.definitions. > > > > InterfaceDefinition" > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > > > not > > > > > > > > > have a value > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
