Where should a `@hidden` annotation on an action be placed? about p4-spec

[jonathan-dilorenzo]

I think if it removes the fully qualified name, then it only makes sense for the annotation to be on the action itself... That said, it's not totally clear to me how this would ripple to any usage. Would it not be exposed as an action in that table in the control plane either? In P4Runtime at least, that's largely not dependent on a fully-qualified name...

(Also not sure what this is for though).

[jafingerhut]

The one use case I know of off the top of my head for the @hidden annotation is to put it on a table definition. When used that way, the table is not visible to a control plane API at all, neither for adding entries, nor its key fields, nor its associated actions. One or more actions of such a hidden table might also be the non-hidden actions of a non-hidden table, in which case it makes perfect sense to me that those actions would have names visible to the controller.

I do not know of any examples where I have seen a P4 table be not-hidden, but it is defined with at least one action that is hidden. I am not sure what would be intended to happen if a controller attempted to read all entries of the table, while some of those entries used a hidden action, for example. I doubt the P4Runtime API specification has an answer to what ought to happen in this situation (but perhaps it does, and I am forgetting it). This sounds to me like a scenario where it is likely that no one wanted to do this, and no one has thought before to ask what ought to happen.

[jonathan-dilorenzo]

Mm, I think this would fall under the 'read-write' symmetry requirement basically, so no such entries should be visible. If that table was additionally marked as dataplane volatile, then I really don't know, but would probably err on the side of still 'not visible' for simplicity.