Data loss when parsing ASA `show route` output

Hello,

I’m parsing some show route output out in the wild, and I stumbled across what seems like a limitation of the schema.

This is an excerpt from show route on “device-a”:

S*       0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 [1/0] via 192.2.0.1, Outside-Port-Channel
...
S    0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 [255/0] via 10.98.126.1, Inside-Port-Channel tunneled 

The parsed output from this config omits the top row because the CIDR coincides with the bottom row:

...
"routes": {
    "0.0.0.0/0": {
        "candidate_default": false,
        "active": true,
        "route": "0.0.0.0/0",
        "source_protocol_codes": "S",
        "source_protocol": "static",
        "metric": 0,
        "route_preference": 255,
        "next_hop": {
            "next_hop_list": {
                1: {
                    "index": 1,
                    "next_hop": "10.98.126.1",
                    "outgoing_interface_name": "Inside-Port-Channel"
                }
            }
        }
    },
...
}
...

I propose that the schema for ASA’s show route (and possibly others) be updated to support plural routes:

...
"routes": {
    "0.0.0.0/0": {
        1: {
            "candidate_default": true,
            "active": true,
            "route": "0.0.0.0/0",
            "source_protocol_codes": "S",
            "source_protocol": "static",
            "metric": 0,
            "route_preference": 1,
            "next_hop": {
                "next_hop_list": {
                    "1": {
                        "index": 1,
                        "next_hop": "192.2.0.1",
                        "outgoing_interface_name": "Outside-Port-Channel"
                    }
                }
            }
            }
        },
        2: {
            "candidate_default": false,
            "active": true,
            "route": "0.0.0.0/0",
            "source_protocol_codes": "S",
            "source_protocol": "static",
            "metric": 0,
            "route_preference": 255,
            "next_hop": {
                "next_hop_list": {
                    1: {
                        "index": 1,
                        "next_hop": "10.98.126.1",
                        "outgoing_interface_name": "Inside-Port-Channel"
                    }
                }
            }
        }
    }
}
...

[thismatters]

Hi @tahigash

Thank you for those insights! I agree completely about the approach of adding a key for tunneled_routes.

[tahigash]

@thismatters as you suggested on https://github.com/CiscoTestAutomation/genieparser/pull/582, please open new PR with above schema. thanks for your contribution again! closing this issue since discussion was closed.