Isis show route paths json

[pguibert6WIND]

Add json support for 'show isis route' , paths part.

[ton31337]

Ignoring (all other old fields not using this format also) camelCase for JSON, LGTM.

[ton31337]

Could you fix the tests also?

[riw777]

looks good ... waiting on ci fixes

[vjardin]

code is ok, please, @pguibert6WIND , can you fix the commit log's title of:
760b793
so it does not wrap.

[riw777]

need to look at ietf yang model

[pguibert6WIND]

code is ok, please, @pguibert6WIND , can you fix the commit log's title of: 760b793 so it does not wrap.

done

[pguibert6WIND]

need to look at ietf yang model

Lets us see if CI passes.
For the naming convention, I need the caml support on table to be approved before going on.
so, high chance that ietf yang model will be on separate pull requests.

[pguibert6WIND]

ci:rerun lets rerun

[pguibert6WIND]

need to look at ietf yang model

Lets us see if CI passes. For the naming convention, I need the caml support on table to be approved before going on. so, high chance that ietf yang model will be on separate pull requests.

@riw777 , I found that, but it appears it does not seem to match our model at all.
looks like it should be a separate task, no ?

https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-isis-yang-isis-cfg

grouping route-content {
       description
         "IS-IS protocol-specific route properties grouping.";
       leaf metric {
         type uint32;
         description "IS-IS metric of a route.";
       }
       leaf-list tag {
         type uint64;
         description
           "List of tags associated with the route.
            This list provides a consolidated view of both
            32-bit and 64-bit tags ([RFC5130](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5130)) available for the prefix.";
       }
       leaf route-type {
         type enumeration {
           enum l2-intra-area {
             description "Level 2 internal route. As per [RFC5302](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5302),
                          the prefix is directly connected to the
                          advertising router. It cannot be
                          distinguished from an L1->L2 inter-area
                          route.";
           }
           enum l1-intra-area {
             description "Level 1 internal route. As per [RFC5302](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5302),
                          the prefix is directly connected to the
                          advertising router.";
           }
           enum l2-external {
             description "Level 2 external route. As per [RFC5302](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5302),
                          such a route is learned from other IGPs.
                          It cannot be distinguished from an L1->L2
                          inter-area external route.";
           }
           enum l1-external {



Litkowski, et al.        Expires April 17, 2020                [Page 44]


Internet-Draft                  isis-cfg                    October 2019


             description "Level 1 external route. As per [RFC5302](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc5302),
                          such a route is learned from other IGPs.";
           }
           enum l1-inter-area {
             description "These prefixes are learned via L2 routing.";
           }
           enum l1-inter-area-external {
             description "These prefixes are learned via L2 routing
                          towards an l2-external route.";
           }
         }
         description "IS-IS route type.";
       }
     }

[pguibert6WIND]

ci:rerun

[aceelindem]

need to look at ietf yang model

Lets us see if CI passes. For the naming convention, I need the caml support on table to be approved before going on. so, high chance that ietf yang model will be on separate pull requests.

With respect to this comment, the ietf-isis.yang model only includes read-only retrieval of the IS-IS local RIB. There is no collary for the SPF tree - refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9130/ (see grouping local-rib).

[pguibert6WIND]

need to look at ietf yang model

Lets us see if CI passes. For the naming convention, I need the caml support on table to be approved before going on. so, high chance that ietf yang model will be on separate pull requests.

With respect to this comment, the ietf-isis.yang model only includes read-only retrieval of the IS-IS local RIB. There is no collary for the SPF tree - refer to https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9130/ (see grouping local-rib).

Thanks @aceelindem for feedback.
I understand it was not matching because I was comparing a route entry with a SPF path entry.

This pull request has an ultimate commit that modified the route entry json format. (see [0]).
when I read local-rib, I have a doubt about the next-hop object. in caml format, do we keep next-hop or can we move to nextHop ?

[0] 611f83f