Confusing log messages

[mattiaswal]

Today you always get these two entries in the log when using rousette:

Jan 14 05:42:12 ix-00-00-00 rousette[3439]: [2025-01-14 05:42:12.277] [rousette] [info] NACM config validation: Anonymous user access disabled 

Jan 14 05:42:12 ix-00-00-00 rousette[3439]: [2025-01-14 05:42:12.278] [rousette] [warning] Telemetry disabled. No CzechLight YANG modules found. 

NACM config validation: Anonymous user access This is confusing when using using rousette in a system (as our, Infix), where RESTCONF may be only one access protocol among many, then you will have the same behavior in NETCONF/RESTCONF (Specially with the RBAC). this feature should be able to disable at least. Runtime/compiletime?

Telemetry disabled. No CzechLight YANG modules This i feel should be an opt-in feature (--enable-czechlight), I really think this should be disabled by default, since it only is for your system, general users of rousette as RESTCONF server for sysrepo will just be confused.

What do you say?

[jktjkt]

[rousette] [info] NACM config validation: Anonymous user access disabled

This is confusing when using using rousette in a system (as our, Infix), where RESTCONF may be only one access protocol among many, then you will have the same behavior in NETCONF/RESTCONF (Specially with the RBAC). this feature should be able to disable at least.

Anonymous access is disabled by default; it will only get enabled when some special conditions are configured in the NACM rule-list, and which is only writable by the system administrator. What change do you propose?

[rousette] [warning] Telemetry disabled. No CzechLight YANG modules found.

This i feel should be an opt-in feature (--enable-czechlight), I really think this should be disabled by default, since it only is for your system, general users of rousette as RESTCONF server for sysrepo will just be confused.

I agree, and the plan is to remove this "feature" completely once the native support for IETF YANG-push over RESTCONF is merged. We're working on that, so I don't think that it's worth the effort to spend time on making this option configurable. Your thoughts?