Currently, GoSnappi expects the port locations have to be encoded in an unintuitive format: "chassis_ip;card;port". In most use cases, the chassis IP is the same across all port locations, which usually makes it redundant information the client needs to provide. It would be more user-friendly and less error-prone experience if a chassis address could be provided at the GoSnappi API level and then if the port locations could be given using the more familiar card/port syntax.
So instead of a user provided "10.39.33.143;1;3" as a port location, they can just provided "1/3", and this would be properly resolved against a globally provided chassis IP. There is no need to drop support for the existing port location syntax, especially if there is a desire to support use case where ports are spread across multiple chassis.
Currently, GoSnappi expects the port locations have to be encoded in an unintuitive format: "chassis_ip;card;port". In most use cases, the chassis IP is the same across all port locations, which usually makes it redundant information the client needs to provide. It would be more user-friendly and less error-prone experience if a chassis address could be provided at the GoSnappi API level and then if the port locations could be given using the more familiar card/port syntax.
So instead of a user provided "10.39.33.143;1;3" as a port location, they can just provided "1/3", and this would be properly resolved against a globally provided chassis IP. There is no need to drop support for the existing port location syntax, especially if there is a desire to support use case where ports are spread across multiple chassis.