Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adjust gNMI SetRequest Update handling for list keys + value payloads #176

Open
wants to merge 4 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Adjust gNMI SetRequest Update handling for list keys + value payloads #176

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
0aa10d6
Adjust gNMI SetRequest Update handling for list keys + value payloads
earies Nov 18, 2022
19d1961
Merge branch 'master' into gnmi-update-list-keys
earies Jun 27, 2023
3b22ada
Cleanup merge conflicts
earies Jun 27, 2023
0ce69e9
Syntax/alignment cleanup
earies Jun 27, 2023
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
40 changes: 26 additions & 14 deletions rpc/gnmi/gnmi-specification.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,10 +4,10 @@
Paul Borman, Marcus Hines, Carl Lebsack, Chris Morrow, Anees Shaikh, Rob Shakir, Wen Bo Li, Darren Loher

**Date:**
May 25, 2023
June 27, 2023

**Version:**
0.10.0
0.10.1

**[gNMI service](https://github.com/openconfig/gnmi/blob/master/proto/gnmi/gnmi.proto) compatibility:**
0.10.x
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1247,19 +1247,27 @@ root +
The path convention defined in [Section 2.2.2](#222-paths) allows nodes in the
data tree to be identified by a unique set of node names (e.g.,`/a/b/c/d`) or
paths that consist of node names coupled with attributes (e.g., `/a/e[key=10]`).
In the case where where a node name plus attribute name is required to uniquely
identify an element (i.e., the path within the schema represents a list, map, or
array), the following considerations apply:
In the case where a node name plus attribute name is required to uniquely
identify an element (i.e., the path within the schema represents a list, map,
or array), the following considerations apply:

- In the case that multiple attribute values are required to uniquely address
an element - e.g., `/a/f[k1=10][k2=20]`- and a replace or update
operation's path specifies a subset of the attributes (e.g., `/a/f[k1=10]`)
then this MUST be considered an error by the target system - and an status
code of`InvalidArgument (3)` specified.
an element - e.g., `/a/f[k1=10][k2=20]`- and a replace or update
operation's path specifies a subset of the attributes (e.g., `/a/f[k1=10]`)
then this MUST be considered an error by the target system - and an status
code of` InvalidArgument (3)` specified.
- In the case that key values are specified both as attributes of a node in the
path, and as their own elements within the value, then this MUST be considered
an error by the target system - and a status code of `InvalidArgument (3)`
specified. Targeting a list member with update or replace operations that
modify it's own keys in either conflicting or identical fashion is not
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To support idempotent behavior, identical update/replace should be permitted. Agreed that conflicting node / list key values must return an error. I think that is already covered by the last bullet point in this stanza,

permitted thus they must be omitted from the value payload. This holds true
for the direct descendant list key nodes as well as the ultimate leafref'd
nodes per OpenConfig [style guidelines](https://github.com/openconfig/public/blob/master/doc/openconfig_style_guide.md#list).
- In the case that key values are specified both as attributes of a node, and
as their own elements within the data tree, update or replace operations
that modify instances of the key in conflicting ways MUST be considered an
error. The target MUST return a status code of `InvalidArgument (3)`.
as their own elements within the data tree, update or replace operations
that modify instances of the key in conflicting ways MUST be considered an
error. The target MUST return a status code of `InvalidArgument (3)`.

For example, consider a tree corresponding to the examples above, as illustrated
below.
Expand All @@ -1283,8 +1291,8 @@ root +
In this case, nodes `k1` and `k2` are standalone nodes within the schema, but
also correspond to attribute values for the node "`f`". In this case, an update
or replace message specifying a path of `/a/f[k1=10][k2=20]` setting the value
of `k1` to 100 MUST be considered erroneous, and a status code of
`InvalidArgument (3)` specified.
of `k1` to either the same value (10) or an alternate value (100) MUST be
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To support idempotent behavior, I believe setting a node which is also a list key to the same value it already has should be permitted. Only changing the node's value must be an error.

considered erroneous, and a status code of `InvalidArgument (3)` specified.

### 3.4.6 Deleting Configuration

Expand Down Expand Up @@ -1767,6 +1775,10 @@ limitations under the License

# 7 Revision History

- v0.10.1: June 27, 2023
- Clarify that for `Set`, that if targeting a path by list keys that the
list keys cannot be included within the value payload

- v0.10.0: May 25, 2023
- Add `union_replace` operation. Sync revision to gNMI proto revision.

Expand Down