-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 714
Extend Add-path Send leaf with values ADDPATH-ECMP and ADDPATH-ALL #1518
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.
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
Open
nupkanoi
wants to merge
6
commits into
openconfig:master
Choose a base branch
from
nupkanoi:oc_addpath
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
9f2d1c2
Extend Add-path Send leaf with values ADDPATH-ECMP and ADDPATH-ALL
nupkanoi 48df853
Updating the parent module and all other submodules to reflect the co…
nupkanoi 675965c
Merge branch 'master' into oc_addpath
nupkanoi f2fe571
feat: add ADDPATH_BACKUP enum to BGP Add-path send configuration
nupkanoi 86e0862
fix: correct revision date to 2026-07-15 in openconfig-bgp-common.yang
nupkanoi ed99000
Revert the send leaf back to type boolean; to ensure strict backwards…
nupkanoi File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Even though you are retaining the original type in a union, that is a backwards incompatible change at a high level and warrants a major version increment vs. patch
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm a bit unclear on why this is considered backwards-incompatible given the boolean type is still supported in the union. Could you help me understand the impact? Please let me know what major version number you'd recommend bumping this to and I'll update the PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Any type change can have impact beyond the wire encoding - in this case wire encoding could stay the same but codegen, validation, etc.. could now be problematic - impacts unknown. A client also has to adapt to new typing and values being a possibility.
Interleaving types like this is probably not a good idea either as it becomes messy and complex very fast - a usual approach would be to leave the current definition intact (unless there is proof there is no implementation, etc..) and introduce a new structure and create a migration path.
I don't think there are any widely published rulesets on this and is left to interpretation tbh - sliding unions in is just a gap that probably needs some rules around it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, @earies . That makes complete sense, I hadn't fully considered the downstream blast radius for codegen tools (like ygot) where a union would fundamentally change the generated types and break existing clients expecting a standard boolean.
I agree with your suggested approach to leave the current definition intact and create a clean migration path. I have made the following changes to the PR:
Let me know if this looks good to you.