Open muffizone opened 7 years ago
LGTM, @napalm-automation/council any comments?
@muffadal-presswala I think you mentioned already you have some implementation ready as well, feel free to push it linking the PR to this one for reference. We usually like seeing a working implementation before merging new getters.
Disregard my last commend, I just saw you already did, linking for reference: napalm-automation/napalm-iosxr/pull/146
Guys,
I was wondering if we need another method like get_isis_adjacencies_detail(). The plan was to add three additional keys in the neighbor attributes.
Same XML request is used to retrieve output for both of them.
Brief method output:
{system_id:
{'interface_name': interface_name,
'neighbor_state': neighbor_state,
'circuit_type': circuit_type,
'ietf_nsf_flag': ietf_nsf_flag,
'network_type': network_type,
}
}
Detailed method output
{system_id:
{'interface_name': interface_name,
'neighbor_state': neighbor_state,
'circuit_type': circuit_type,
'ietf_nsf_flag': ietf_nsf_flag,
'network_type': network_type,
> 'neighbor_area': neighbor_area,
> 'neighbor_uptime': neighbor_uptime,
> 'topologies_supported': topologies_supported
}
}
Given the base information is the same I'd be inclined to only have the detailed version. Unless the detailed version has a huge cost in terms of querying the devices.
Its the same query as base so should not make a difference
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 9:23 AM, David Barroso notifications@github.com wrote:
Given the base information is the same I'd be inclined to only have the detailed version. Unless the detailed version has a huge cost in terms of querying the devices.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-base/pull/307#issuecomment-330781356, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIVHlQ4gYEhu-wyz-BtOH9Hmp1QQWxiuks5skMuUgaJpZM4PSCJ1 .
-- Regards, Muffadal S Presswala
Then, unless someone has strong opinions about it I'd suggest sticking with the detailed one only.
Ok will wait couple of days and push the changes soon for review
On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 11:30 AM, David Barroso notifications@github.com wrote:
Then, unless someone has strong opinions about it I'd suggest sticking with the detailed one only.
— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/napalm-automation/napalm-base/pull/307#issuecomment-330812297, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIVHlcZuj5czAoZ0PdNI25xry9KGfTpuks5skOk6gaJpZM4PSCJ1 .
-- Regards, Muffadal S Presswala
I have updated the method with additional output
Hi all - sorry for chiming in so late here. With the risk of being a PITA, wouldn't be better to return a dictionary with the same, but structured as per the openconfig-isis
YANG model? This way we are sure we cover the fields defined there, we don't use a structure that we designed, and this could very well help with the napalm-yang
too. Thoughts?
Sure, sounds like a good idea.
Let me have a look and see what needs to change
Pull request for get_isis_adjacencies method
napalm-automation/napalm-iosxr/pull/146