Wrong ordering of "path" statement

[openBackhaul]

Validating the Core IM 1.4.1 with pyang --lint core-model.yang results in core-model-1-4.yang:1694: error: keyword "path" not in canonical order (see RFC 6020, Section 12)

(Might already be fixed with updating the UML2YANG for translating the tech.spec. extension.)

[PrathibaJee]

• In UML2YANG tool , by default the "require-instance" will be generated after the "path" statement. This behavior of the tool fixes the canonical order issue.
• We also generated a ReleaseCandidate#1 for the core-model and able to see the correct canonical order.
• But , as per the proposal in core/issues/17 , the require-statement of the leafref shall be "false" and not "true".

  leaf-list physical-port-reference {
    type leafref {
      path "/core-model:control-construct/core-model:equipment/core-model:uuid";
      require-instance false;
    }
    description
      "One or more text labels for the unmodeled physical port associated with the LTP.
       In many cases there is no associated physical port.";
  }

• This will be available if we generate and publish a new release of the core-model-1-4.

Related issue https://github.com/openBackhaul/core/issues/10

[PrathibaJee]

As per the decision made in the issue https://github.com/openBackhaul/core/issues/10 ,

Decision : The "pruning and refactoring" step should prune the "LogicalTerminationPoint:physicalPortRefernce[*]". As the result the "physical-port-reference" will be removed from the core-model-1-4.yang.

This issue is obsolete.

[demx8as6]

Ad-hoc decision in 5G-xHaul call 2023-05-31:

This issue is now obsolete due to the decision made in #10 . -> closed