You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, GoSnappi expects the port locations have to be encoded in an unintuitive format: "chassis_ip;card;port". In most use cases, the chassis IP is the same across all port locations, which usually makes it redundant information the client needs to provide. It would be more user-friendly and less error-prone experience if a chassis address could be provided at the GoSnappi API level and then if the port locations could be given using the more familiar card/port syntax.
So instead of a user provided "10.39.33.143;1;3" as a port location, they can just provided "1/3", and this would be properly resolved against a globally provided chassis IP. There is no need to drop support for the existing port location syntax, especially if there is a desire to support use case where ports are spread across multiple chassis.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Currently, GoSnappi expects the port locations have to be encoded in an unintuitive format: "chassis_ip;card;port". In most use cases, the chassis IP is the same across all port locations, which usually makes it redundant information the client needs to provide. It would be more user-friendly and less error-prone experience if a chassis address could be provided at the GoSnappi API level and then if the port locations could be given using the more familiar card/port syntax.
So instead of a user provided "10.39.33.143;1;3" as a port location, they can just provided "1/3", and this would be properly resolved against a globally provided chassis IP. There is no need to drop support for the existing port location syntax, especially if there is a desire to support use case where ports are spread across multiple chassis.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: