[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: <validate> operation somewhat broken
Andy Bierman <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Andy Bierman wrote:
> > Hi,
> > IMO, the <validate> command is not actually useful for 'inline'
> > configuration validation.
> I think the WG should decide what to do about this problem:
> 1) Ignore it
> 2) Document it
> 3) Fix it
> IMO, the proper engineering fix requires 2 independent changes:
> 1) Add a 'test-only' enumeration to the (edit-config) test-option
> parameter. (Remember that this entire parameter is only supported
> if the :validate capability is supported. This change could
> be done as a validate-2.0 capability, and not change the 1.0 capability.
I think this would be a very useful enhancement.
> 2) Remove configInlineType as one of the options for the 'source'
> parameter in the validate operation. (Make it the same data type
> as the getConfig source parameter).
That means that you could only <validate> the 'candidate', 'running'
or 'startup'? I think this would be fine, b/c test-only is a much
more useful operation. [side note: does it make sense to validate
to unsubscribe send a message to email@example.com with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.