status regex includes non-whitespace

[tfchristie-wi]

No description provided.

[mjbear]

resolves #1938

[mjbear]

It doesn't appear that .* is too loose (greedy) based on how your test data behaves when parsed. 🙂

[jmcgill298]

Thanks @tfchristie-wi

[tfchristie-wi]

The test that fails seems to be one where keywords are in the description/name.
I went back and looked at the regex for NAME and it is: Value NAME (.+?)
I am not even sure how to parse that. It seems like a field length: (.{18})\s would be more sane.
changing :?.*\s to :?.{0,9}\s seems to work as well.
NB: the test file: cisco_ios_show_interfaces_status_with_keywords_in_name.raw
has 3 lines for the same interface:

Fa0/4 uplink notconnect 123 auto auto 10/100BaseTX
Fa0/4 downlink notconnect 456 auto auto 10/100BaseTX
Fa0/4 suspended customer disabled 789 auto auto 10/100BaseTX

[mjbear]

The test that fails seems to be one where keywords are in the description/name. I went back and looked at the regex for NAME and it is: Value NAME (.+?) I am not even sure how to parse that.

There are different lines for the various matches.
I'll take to this and submit some changes your way @tfchristie-wi

It seems like a field length: (.{18})\s would be more sane. changing :?.*\s to :?.{0,9}\s seems to work as well. NB: the test file: cisco_ios_show_interfaces_status_with_keywords_in_name.raw has 3 lines for the same interface:

I'll see what I can work up - hopefully something simple. 😁

Fa0/4 uplink notconnect 123 auto auto 10/100BaseTX Fa0/4 downlink notconnect 456 auto auto 10/100BaseTX Fa0/4 suspended customer disabled 789 auto auto 10/100BaseTX

It is mostly cosmetic that there are three of the same ... though it could be helpful to have them be unique port names.

[mjbear]

@tfchristie-wi
I submitted tfchristie-wi/pull/1 for you to review.

I include the below workflow description in case you're new to git and GitHub.
Once you've reviewed my PR against your fix-issue-1938 branch, you can approve it which will merge my changes into your branch thus making it part of your upstream NTC templates PR.

[mjbear]

@jmcgill298
This PR should be ready for re-review.
Once this is in I'll rebase and prepare another PR I have for this template. Thank you!