Closed kellerza closed 3 years ago
Have you considered decoupling of base topology definition ("old" clab.yml format) from new variable definitions?
Hi @LimeHat if you mean to keep variables used for config generation apart from the topology file, then we had a few rounds of discussions about it and the majority of responders were find it more comfortable to have the variables defined in the same file as the topology. This has some benefits such as:
The cost is that the file might be bigger than one would want.
I guess a compromise can be added to "Future evolution" is to have a something like this
config:
transport: ...
vars-from-file: <filepath>
to indicate that variables should come from the file
Move discussion to #487
383 triggered some good discussions on config template support
Scope of #383
config: vars:
will just be infrastructure worksplit
,join
,slice
,index
-->slice
&index
,len
are standard, but the value for slice&index are not last (for|
chaining) so reimplemented themip
,ipmask
(can probably be done using{{ split .ip "/" | index 0/1 }}
)contains
,require
default
with type checking, likely only "int" usableexpect
&optional
for "yang-lite" with regex supportip
,int
,str
,1-10
(range of int),\\d+
(any regex)Other work:
config: vars:
instead oflabels:
@kellerzaFuture evolution
New config vars
Node
Params