Child pages
  • #20: Configuration of the Kind of HybridMwStructure
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata
Due date 
OwnerThorsten Heinze 


Adding an additional HybridMwStructure::HybridMwStructureConfiguration::_structureKind*) attribute of TypeDefinitions::TdmStructureType data type.

Marking the existing HybridMwStructure::HybridMwStructureConfiguration::structureType attribute to be "deprecated".


*) see also issue #21, which is requesting for the term "Type" to be removed from attributes' names.


Content of the Mantis Bug Tracker:

DescriptionHybridMwStructureCapability offers defining several kinds of hybrid-structures (e.g. E1, E3 ...), which are available at the device.
This is done by creating several instances of TdmStructureType data type within HybridMwStructureCapability::supportedTdmStructureTypesList.

HybridMwStructureConfiguration shall offer chosing one out of these hybrid-structures. This shall be done by referencing on the respective instance of the TdmStructureType data type.

Current translation of the UML to YANG leads to the wrong result.
It generates a new instance of TdmStructureType data type in HybridMwStructureConfiguration and makes the attributes inside TdmStructureType data type configurable.

Presumably, the problem should be fixed by changing from
HybridMwStructureConfiguration::structureType to


  1. I did not fixed the problem UmlYangTools - instead of referring to an object the object is completely instantiated again. The UmlYangTool distinguish the two case by checking the leading underscore. Due to the case the leading underscore was not in UML the tool defined the entire object again, Expected it a reference. I'm not sure, if changing the name can be called "backward compatible". I suggest to keep "structureType" as "deprecated" and to add the attribute "_structureKind". 

    1. Changing the name would not be backward compatible.

      The existing attribute (bug) should be marked as "deprecated".

      Adding the underscore (issue#20) and removing the term "Type" (issue#21) should be done in the same step.

      The proposal has already been adapted accordingly.