> On 23 Oct 2017, at 12:37, Martin Bjorklund <[email protected]> wrote: > > Robert Wilton <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> On 23/10/2017 10:10, Martin Bjorklund wrote: >>> Andy Bierman <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Robert Wilton <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Lada, >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 20/10/2017 16:27, Ladislav Lhotka wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Rob, >>>>>> >>>>>> Robert Wilton <[email protected]> writes: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> XPATH 1.0 defines the following three node-type tests: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) comment() >>>>>>> 2) processing-instruction(<opt arg>) >>>>>>> 3) text() >>>>>>> >>>>>> For completeness, node() is the fourth one. >>>>>> >>>>>> My assumption is that a YANG tree doesn't contain any nodes of type >>>>>>> 'comment' or 'processing-instruction' and hence these filters would >>>>>>> never match any nodes. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. FWIW, Yangson library raises NotSupported exception upon >>>>>> encountering these. >>>>>> >>>> But a server or client should ignore PIs, not reject the XML. >>>> >>>> I think text() and node() are just filter tests. >>>> >>>> /foo/*[text()] would return all the child nodes of /foo that are leaf >>>> or >>>> leaf-list >>>> >>>> text() returns a boolean (0 or 1). Do not use it for value testing: >>> No. text() will select the text node children of the context node. >> This is presumably because text() is evaluated as "child::text()". > > Yes. > >>>> /foo/*[text() = 'fred'] // wrong! >>> This actually works. text() selects all text nodes (just one for a >>> leaf), and then that text node is compared to the string 'fred'. >> For clarity, am I right in my interpretation that a leaf is not itself >> a text node, but instead a leaf is an element node that contains a >> direct child text node? > > Yes.
In principle, there could be multiple text nodes (in XML processing this is quite common). Lada > >> Presumably, it is only leaf and leaf-list element nodes that can have >> these direct child text nodes. > > Yes. > >> I can see how this make sense for a XML document, but it does feel a >> bit non intuitive for a YANG data tree > > Maybe, but since we use XPath, we need to conform to the data model > used by XPath (see section 5 of the xpath spec). > >> and it may be helpful if this >> is documented somewhat ... > > RFC 7950 refers to the data model of XPath (See section 6.4 of RFC > 7950), but I agree that it could have had more text. Specifically, it > could have stated how nodes are mapped to elements, that only > leaf/leaf-list have text nodes; that annotations are mapped to > attribute nodes (ok, not really in 7950...); that there are no > processing-instruction and comment nodes. > >> >> /foo/*[. = 'fred'] // correct >> >> Presumably this test isn't quite the same, since child container and >> list nodes would also be included in the comparison (i.e. by >> concatenating all their descendant leaf values together into a single >> string) >> whereas the expression with the text() check will only >> include the values of direct child leaf and leaf-list nodes (as YANG >> is currently defined today). > > Yes. > > > /martin > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod -- Ladislav Lhotka Head, CZ.NIC Labs PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67 _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
