Jernej Tuljak <[email protected]> wrote: > What about inner groupings? Are inner groupings supposed to be > displayed if top-level ones are?
RFC 8340 only specifies the format for top-level groupings; i.e., inline groupings are not displayed separately in the tree diagram. /martin > If so, how? RFC7895 (YANG library > module) is an example - if you choose to display but not to expand > groupings, you may get "+---u"'s that refer to groupings which may > never be part of the diagram. > > Jernej > > > On 23/10/2018 16:11, Martin Bjorklund wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Jernej Tuljak <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> am I reading RFC8340 correctly by assuming "input" and "output" nodes > >> are not to be part of tree diagrams and that instead input/output > >> parameters are now children to the "rpc" or "action" node, > >> distinguished solely via -w/ro flags? > > I hope not, or that was not the intention anyway. > > > >> rpcs: > >> +---x get-schema > >> +---w identifier! string > >> +---w version? string > >> +---w format? identityref > >> +--ro data? > > pyang outputs > > > > +---x get-schema > > +---w input > > | +---w identifier string > > | +---w version? string > > | +---w format? identityref > > +--ro output > > +--ro data? <anyxml> > > > > > >> Only "input parameters" and "output parameters" are mentioned, which > >> seems to suggest data node children of "input" and "output", but not > >> themselves. It also says nothing about which flag they receive, if > >> they are intended to appear. > > Yes I can see how this could be clarified. > > > > > > /martin > _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
