From: Martin Björklund <[email protected]> Sent: 05 May 2020 12:39 Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]
tom petch <[email protected]> wrote: > RFC8349 specifies an action with no input and says that modules that > use this MUST augment the input with a leaf and that the leaf must > be named destination-address. > > Is there any way that YANG can enforce either constraint? This may look correct: action activate-route { input { must '*[local-name(.) = "destination-address"]'; } ... } .... but unfortunatly we have a CLR in the definition of "input": input-stmt = input-keyword optsep "{" stmtsep ;; these stmts can appear in any order *must-stmt *(typedef-stmt / grouping-stmt) HERE---------------> 1*data-def-stmt "}" stmtsep We require "input" to have at least one data-def-stmt, which doens't make any sense, since we allow an action/rpc to not define "input" at all. <tp> Thanks for that. I thought there was a reason but did not think to look there. As you may have guessed, I just looked at a YANG module which broke the rules, added a leaf but of the wrong name. Tom Petch /martin > > Tom Petch > > > _______________________________________________ > netmod mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod _______________________________________________ netmod mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
