On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 08:19:38PM +0100, Vladimir Vassilev wrote: > > As for the automated validation of the tree diagrams as an added value to > the human readability I have the following thoughts. I would like to be able > to compare unlimited line length tree outputs generated by different YANG > compilers for equality. This is mainly a way to have some partial common > denominator output for validating YANG is correctly compiled which we did > not have until now. For example as soon as I have support for Schema mount I > would compare the tree output with another tool known to work and add some > testcases based on that. I do not see any automated alternative for doing > this except writing NETCONF chat scripts (also module specific), or writing > not only YANG module specific but also API specific test cases as 3rd > option. 1) does not compromise this automated validation option since space > sequences can be collapsed to single space. If the alignment algorithm was > creating a possibility for nontrivial output variation then I would have > supported strongly 3) but this is not the current case. >
If you want to make sure a YANG compiler is correct, simply write a backend that generates a serialized YANG module in canonical form. They YANG modules should be the same. Determining YANG compiler correctness by comparing tree diagrams does not seem to be a convincing approach since tree diagrams by design leave many details out. /js -- Juergen Schoenwaelder Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH Phone: +49 421 200 3587 Campus Ring 1 | 28759 Bremen | Germany Fax: +49 421 200 3103 <https://www.jacobs-university.de/> _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
