Handling the last line of each record differently for each version

[yone2ks]

Hello,

I have a problem that involves creating a unified TextFSM template for FortiGate's "get system interface physical" command output across versions 6.4 and 7.4.

Issue

• In version 6.2, each interface record ends with the speed line and the next interface information starts immediately after. In version 7.4, each interface record ends with the FEC_cap line before the next interface information begins.
• I am particularly struggling with the fact that there are no empty lines or clear delimiters between the last line of the interface information and the start of the next interface information. This makes it challenging to properly separate and parse individual interface records.
• I want to record the values of FEC and FEC_cap without affecting backward compatibility.
• current template

6.2 outputs

== [onboard]
    ==[ha]
        mode: static
        ip: 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
        ipv6: ::/0
        status: up
        speed: 1000Mbps (Duplex: full)
    ==[mgmt]
        mode: static
        ip: 192.168.1.99 255.255.255.0
......

7.4 outputs

== [onboard]
    ==[ha]
        mode: static
        ip: 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0
        ipv6: ::/0
        status: up
        speed: 1000Mbps (Duplex: full)
        FEC: none
        FEC_cap: none
    ==[mgmt]
        mode: static
        ip: 192.168.1.99 255.255.255.0
.....

If I were only targeting version 7.2, I understand that I could simply record at the FEC_cap line.
I would appreciate any ideas on how to create a unified template that can handle both versions effectively.

[mjbear]

Issue

* In version 6.2, each interface record ends with the speed line and the next interface information starts immediately after. In version 7.4, each interface record ends with the FEC_cap line before the next interface information begins.

* I am particularly struggling with the fact that there are no empty lines or clear delimiters between the last line of the interface information and the start of the next interface information. This makes it challenging to properly separate and parse individual interface records.

Yeah, this type of output can be a pain.

If you don't need the FEC data, then the simplest is to exclude it. But if the FEC data is important, then it may be necessary to trigger State change(s).

* I want to record the values of FEC and FEC_cap without affecting backward compatibility.

@yone2ks
I see PR #2033 - does this mean you've solved for this already?

[yone2ks]

@mjbear
Thank you for reply.

does this mean you've solved for this already?

No, I haven't solved it yet. PR #2033 is just a quick fix to use the template.
I actually want to record the FEC and FEC_cap values, but I have no idea how to do it.

At this point, I don't have any specific plans to use the FEC data, so I'm not sure how important it is.
However, I believe the values should be collected if they are available.
If anyone has a good idea, I'd appreciate any suggestions.
If there are no suggestions, I might have to give up on this.

[mjbear]

No, I haven't solved it yet. PR #2033 is just a quick fix to use the template. I actually want to record the FEC and FEC_cap values, but I have no idea how to do it.

@yone2ks
Understood.

I can see about taking a detailed look later on today.

[mjbear]

I could have held off development while waiting for answers to questions to assess feasibility.

There was a lot of time and work that went into PR #2036. The solution isn't as simple as other templates so it's possible I'll have to make further edits before it gets merged.

From the conversation on #2033, it is possible the FEC/FEC_cap values probably don't provide much value. Which is a shame in the grand scheme.

In short, the rule actions and state transitions are key to the more complex solutions. However not all templates need extra states/state transitions -- many basic templates don't.

[yone2ks]

@mjbear
Thank you for your hard work. I really appreciate your time and effort, and I'm sorry that my question took up your time.

In short, the rule actions and state transitions are key to the more complex solutions. However not all templates need extra states/state transitions -- many basic templates don't.
I understood. I'll keep this in mind.

Additionally, your template has been very valuable to me. That will help me create more complex templates.
Thank you.

[mjbear]

@mjbear Thank you for your hard work. I really appreciate your time and effort, and I'm sorry that my question took up your time.

You're welcome.

In short, the rule actions and state transitions are key to the more complex solutions. However not all templates need extra states/state transitions -- many basic templates don't.
I understood. I'll keep this in mind.

I'd say be cognizant for what data is useful and what may not need captured.

https://github.com/networktocode/ntc-templates/blob/master/docs/user/faq.md#why-dont-you-grab-all-of-the-data-in-the-template

Additionally, your template has been very valuable to me. That will help me create more complex templates. Thank you.

🙂