Inheritance of the "type" keyname: standpoint for TOSCA v1.2/v1.3?

Dear TOSCA Experts,

in TOSCA v1.2 and v1.3, is the below provider.nodes.Example node type definition valid i.e. does it inherit the “type” keynames from its parent?

node_types:

provider.nodes.Base:

derived_from: tosca.datatypes.Root

properties:

property_1:

type: string

property_2:

type: integer

provider.nodes.Example:

derived_from: provider.nodes.Base

properties:

property_1:

constraints:

- valid_values: [ value_1, value_2 ]

property_2:

constraints:

- in_range: [ 1, 10 ]

The related parts of TOSCA v1.2/v1.3 are ambiguous:

The “type” keyname is a mandatory part of a property definition (3.6.10 Property definition).
‘The “string” type is the default type when not specified on a parameter or property declaration’ (3.3 Parameter and property types).
Furthermore, I can see no example in the specs that would serve as a precedent for the above example. On the other hand, I guess that inheritance in TOSCA has been meant to work like this.

I understand that in the TOSCA v2.0 draft, this aspect is covered in line with the above assumption (‘If not refined, usually a keyname/entity definition, is inherited unchanged from the parent type, unless explicitly specified in the rules that it is “not inherited”’; 4.2.5.1 General derivation and refinement rules).

I am still asking this question related to TOSCA v1.2/v1.3, because implementations differ in this respect, resulting in interoperability issues, turning out too late.

Greetings,

Gábor

tosca message