Support CDDL dfns, extract standard prelude from CDDL RFC #1750
Conversation
This file contains 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
New types of definitions will soon be introduced in Bikeshed to deal with CDDL blocks: cddl-module, cddl-type, cddl-parameter, cddl-key, cddl-value. The extraction now considers that these definition types are valid. To be able to reference CDDL types defined in the standard prelude, a pre-processing step is also added for the CDDL RFC (RFC8610). To avoid creating multiple definitions with the same ID and href, which could perhaps confuse consuming tools (?), all types defined in the standard prelude get attached as different linking text to the same cddl-type dfn.
dontcallmedom
approved these changes
Jan 17, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
New types of definitions will soon be introduced in Bikeshed to deal with CDDL blocks: cddl-module, cddl-type, cddl-parameter, cddl-key, cddl-value. The extraction now considers that these definition types are valid.
To be able to reference CDDL types defined in the standard prelude, a pre-processing step is also added for the CDDL RFC (RFC8610). To avoid creating multiple definitions with the same
idandhref, which could perhaps confuse consuming tools (?), all types defined in the standard prelude get attached as different linking text to the same cddl-type dfn, leading to the following dfns extract:[ { "id": "appendix-D", "href": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610#appendix-D", "linkingText": [ "any", "uint", "nint", "int", "bstr", "bytes", "tstr", "text", "tdate", "time", "number", "biguint", "bignint", "bigint", "integer", "unsigned", "decfrac", "bigfloat", "eb64url", "eb64legacy", "eb16", "encoded-cbor", "uri", "b64url", "b64legacy", "regexp", "mime-message", "cbor-any", "float16", "float32", "float64", "float16-32", "float32-64", "float", "false", "true", "bool", "nil", "null", "undefined" ], "localLinkingText": [], "type": "cddl-type", "for": [], "access": "public", "informative": false, "heading": { "href": "https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8610", "title": "RFC 8610: Concise Data Definition Language (CDDL): A Notational Convention to Express Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR) and JSON Data Structures" }, "definedIn": "pre" } ]I note it would be easy to create one definition per CDDL type otherwise... but then they would have the same
idand samehref. In practice, I do not know whether that would be a problem for anyone (we don't guarantee that dfns have unique IDs per se, although that should be the case unless a spec incorrectly reuses an ID in more than one dfn).