PaloAlto - parsing error when using address object as routing peer or nexthop

[hochkurz]

When using an address object as BGP peer-address (line 2 of the sample configuration) or static-route nexthop (line 4), batfish throws a parsing error.
This syntax is valid on a PaloAlto box running PAN-OS 10.2 version.

Runnable example

from pybatfish.client.session import Session
TXT = """
set deviceconfig system hostname FW1
set network virtual-router VR1 protocol bgp peer-group PG1 peer PEER peer-address ip PEER-OBJECT
set network virtual-router VR1 protocol bgp peer-group PG1 peer PEER peer-address ip 10.10.10.10
set network virtual-router VR1 routing-table ip static-route ROUTE-NAME nexthop ip-address PEER-OBJECT
set address PEER-OBJECT ip-netmask 10.10.10.10
"""

bf = Session()
bf.set_network("github-bug-report")
bf.init_snapshot_from_text(TXT)
# Verify that Batfish recognized the vendor format correctly
print(bf.q.fileParseStatus().answer())
# Insert command(s) below to demonstrate the problem
print(bf.q.initIssues().answer())
print(bf.q.parseWarning().answer())

When replacing the address object (PEER-OBJECT in the sample configuration) by its IP address the line is parsed without error (see line 3).
I also tried to raise the address object definition (line 5) before the routing configuration without success.

[dhalperi]

Thanks! This makes a lot of sense -- we have already added this support for Interface IP addresses, just never for static routes. The solution here is to port the logic from this PR: #5941 , specifically changing to use something like ip_address_or_reference for this property:

snil_ip
:
-    IP address = interface_address
+    IP address = interface_address_or_reference
;

Probably have to add a new parser data rule, since this one allows a prefix too.

This is a great starter task for a new Batfish contributor!