If the list has a "when" clause the RNG file actually produces a "OneOrMore"
which has a choice of <empty> or the list so it actually doesn't enforce the
presence at least one row of the list (unless I'm mistaken in my reading).
<oneOrMore>
<choice>
<empty/>
<element name="IPAddresses">
<element name="Address">
<ref name="types__IPv4Address"/>
</element>
<empty/>
</element>
</choice>
</oneOrMore>
A leaf/container would be a simpler example but would result in the same lack
of enforcement of the mandatory status of an element with a "when" clause.
This RNG seems consistent with the Schematron rules that "when" makes something
optional.
I think a workaround would be choice with mandatory true and a when clause on
the cases. This would ensure that at least one case is present since the
mandatory clause implements a Schematron existence constraint.
Thanks
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Robert Wilton [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 11:33 AM
> To: Michael Rehder <[email protected]>; Ladislav Lhotka
> <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> Cc: Walker, Jason ([email protected])
> <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
> ensure presence of the mandatory object
>
> Hi Mike,
>
> I think that the YANG below already enforces what you want, or otherwise I
> don't follow your issue.
>
> The YANG below is valid in two cases:
>
> (1) AssignmentMechanism = DHCP, and IPAddresses is not present in the config
> (due to the when statement).
> (2) AssignmentMechanism = Static, IPAddresses exists and has at least one
> element (due to min-elements 1).
>
> Thanks,
> Rob
>
>
> On 10/10/2018 16:23, Michael Rehder wrote:
> > Container "foo" would be mandatory if not for the "when" child element.
> > With the "when" child element, the logic becomes "inverted" and the
> constraint is a negative one of "disallowed under certain condition".
> >
> > The UC is for enforcement in REST API payloads.
> > For a practical example:
> >
> > leaf AssignmentMechanism {
> > type enumeration {
> > enum "DHCP";
> > enum "Static";
> > }
> > mandatory true;
> > description "The address assignment mechanism.";
> > }
> > list IPAddresses {
> > when "../AssignmentMechanism = 'Static'";
> > key Address;
> > min-elements 1;
> >
> > leaf Address {
> > type capit:IPv4Address;
> > description "An ipv4 address.";
> > }
> > }
> >
> > There is no way in the IPAddresses list to enforce that there is at least
> > one IP
> Address when the assignment method is "Static".
> > One could put a "must" on "AssignmentMechanism" to ensure at least one
> element of the IPAddresses list when "Static", but I don't see this as a good
> schema design, to have the controlling attribute check controlled attributes.
> >
> > I appreciate that this semantic can't be changed in YANG at this point.
> > Could the "when" statement have a modifying child element to state that the
> mandatory status of the element is to be enforced?
> > Like
> > container foo {
> > when "condition" {
> > enforce-mandatory-status;
> > }
> >
> > There is already back-end for existential checks for mandatory choice so
> > this
> seems reasonably consistent to me.
> > I appreciate there are existing issues for "when" but I don't see why this
> would make things any worse.
> > In fact by promoting a better dependency "direction" between schema
> elements, think it could simplify things (so I naively think :) ).
> >
> > Thanks
> > Mike
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ladislav Lhotka [mailto:[email protected]]
> >> Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2018 10:28 AM
> >> To: Michael Rehder <[email protected]>; [email protected]
> >> Subject: Re: [netmod] WHEN statement within mandatory objects doesn't
> >> ensure presence of the mandatory object
> >>
> >> Michael Rehder <[email protected]> writes:
> >>
> >>> I have a question about “when” and mandatory objects.
> >>>
> >>> It seems to me that the implemented semantics of “when” are really
> >> “optional when”, in that the enclosing object can be absent even
> >> though it is mandatory and the “when” clause holds true.
> >>> The RFC could be clearer about this.
> >>>
> >>> Example
> >>>
> >>> leaf color {
> >>> enumeration {
> >>> enum “blue”;
> >>> enum “black”;
> >>> }
> >>> mandatory true;
> >>> }
> >>> container foo {
> >>> when ../color = ‘blue’;
> >>> etc.
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> “foo” is optional due to the presence of the “when” statement even
> >>> though the object is mandatory (same is true for mandatory leaf,
> >>> min-elements=1 list etc.).
> >> Maybe you intended to have, e.g., a "mandatory true" leaf inside
> >> "container foo"?
> >>
> >>> This is considered valid XML for the above
> >>> <color>blue</color>
> >> Yes, it is, under current YANG rules, no matter what "etc." stands
> >> for. Note that evaluation of the XPath expression in this case (with
> >> "foo" missing) requires the peculiar procedure of sec. 7.21.5 in RFC 7950.
> >>
> >>> In my view this makes conditionally variant schemas “loose” in their
> >>> enforcement (some scenarios can use choice but it doesn’t cover
> >>> everything).
> >>>
> >>> I think that mandatory should be respected for the enclosing objects
> >>> of a “when” statement. That is, a mandatory object must be present
> >>> when its “when” clause holds true and a Schematron statement should
> >>> enforce that.
> >> In fact, this is one case where the DSDL mapping (RFC 6110) deviates
> >> from YANG 1.0. Nodes that mandatory aren't enclosed in the RELAX NG
> >> <optional> pattern, and are then required no matter what any "when"
> >> statements say (because RELAX NG validation comes before Schematron).
> >>
> >>> What is the rationale behind the current YANG rules behavior, that
> >>> the “when” Schematron mapping doesn’t check for presence of the
> >>> enclosing mandatory object?
> >> FWIW, I have been repeatedly protesting against this behaviour but
> >> without much luck. See for example
> >>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/netmod/current/msg14012.html
> >>
> >> As a result, "when" is the trickiest feature in YANG by far.
> >>
> >> Lada
> >>
> >>> thanks
> >>> Mike Rehder
> >> --
> >> Ladislav Lhotka
> >> Head, CZ.NIC Labs
> >> PGP Key ID: 0xB8F92B08A9F76C67
> > “Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, cloud-based
> system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and stored using such
> system and are accessible by third party providers of such system on a limited
> basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs evidences your consent to the use of
> such system and such processing, storing and access”.
> > _______________________________________________
> > netmod mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
“Amdocs’ email platform is based on a third-party, worldwide, cloud-based
system. Any emails sent to Amdocs will be processed and stored using such
system and are accessible by third party providers of such system on a limited
basis. Your sending of emails to Amdocs evidences your consent to the use of
such system and such processing, storing and access”.
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
