Hi, It would change the schema node for an object if it was wrapped it in a choice. This affects augment and deviation statements that reference the old schema node. The 'uses' node is a special case since it never appears in a schema node identifier.
Andy On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 9:31 AM, Kent Watsen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Joey, > > Your proposal looks fine to me, since it doesn't change the semantics of > the data model. Note that https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7950#section-11 > says: > > o Any set of data definition nodes may be replaced with another set > of syntactically and semantically equivalent nodes. For example, > a set of leafs may be replaced by a "uses" statement of a grouping > with the same leafs. > > Kent > > -- > > Hello, > > Does anyone have thoughts on this? > > Regards, > Joey > > -----Original Message----- > From: JOEY BOYD > Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 9:06 AM > To: '[email protected]' > Subject: Backward Compatibility Question > > Hi all, > > Suppose I had a published YANG model with the following leaf. > > > leaf thing1 { > type uint8; > description > "Thing 1."; > } > > Later, I realize that I wish I had modeled this in a choice as I now have > a mutually exclusive option to 'thing1' which I want to add to the model. > > leaf thing2 { > type empty; > description > "Thing 2."; > } > > This is a very simplified example but should be sufficient to demonstrate > the problem. > > If I look at the XML representation of 'thing1', it looks like this. > > <thing1>123</thing1> > > If I were to move 'thing1' into a choice with a single case, it would look > like this. > > choice things { > case thing1 { > leaf thing1 { > type uint8; > description > "Thing 1."; > } > } > } > > Looking to the XML representation, it looks the same as before. > > <thing1>123</thing1> > > To me, this means that taking a single node or set of nodes and moving > them under a case within a new choice statement is a backward compatible > change. This assumes, of course, any mandatory or default behavior is > preserved. I now can add 'thing2' to the existing model as an option to > 'thing1'. > > choice things { > case thing1 { > leaf thing1 { > type uint8; > description > "Thing 1."; > } > } > case thing2 { > leaf thing2 { > type empty; > description > "Thing 2."; > } > } > } > > Do you agree with this analysis or am I missing something? > > Best regards, > Joey > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www. > ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_netmod&d=DwICAg&c=HAkYuh63rsuhr6Scbfh0UjBXeMK- > ndb3voDTXcWzoCI&r=9zkP0xnJUvZGJ9EPoOH7Yhqn2gsBYaGTvjISlaJdcZo&m= > vi3qkFb6HjmIlHo1rXJ2EV-Px58aFLqNc_L6hFsiug4&s=RBiaGoEWCnihPqGVmD6nyVoG_- > 2vlalhOsqwUjsSRqg&e= > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod >
_______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
