[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6324?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Peter Klügl updated UIMA-6324:
------------------------------
Summary: Ruta: | and & REs may miss matches (was: | and & REs may miss
matches)
> Ruta: | and & REs may miss matches
> ----------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-6324
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6324
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Ruta
> Affects Versions: 2.8.1ruta, 3.0.1ruta
> Reporter: Michael Stenger
> Assignee: Peter Klügl
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 2.9.0ruta, 3.1.0ruta
>
>
> Hey Peter...
> I have two examples where rules using | and & presumably miss out matches.
> However, this may be cause by other steps of the execution process than these
> rule elements since I couldn't find a bug in ComposedRuleElement class.
> Hopefully, you can enlighten me on this. I used the Workbench to test this:
> * Example 1
> Text:
> {noformat}
> A B A B
> {noformat}
> Script:
> {noformat}
> DECLARE A, B, C;
> "A" {-> A};
> "B" {-> B};
> ((B A) | ("B" "A")){-> C} W;
> {noformat}
> I'd expect a C annotation on "B A" here, but it only outputs the A and B
> annotations from the first 2 rules. On the other hand, if I replace the |
> with &, it creates a C as exprected. That doesn't seem right. | should be a
> less strong condition.
> * Example 2
> Text (same):
> {noformat}
> A B A B
> {noformat}
> Script:
> {noformat}
> DECLARE A, B, C;
> "A" {-> A};
> "B" {-> B};
> ((B A) & ("B" "A")){-> C} @W;
> {noformat}
> Here, its the other way around, meaning that a C annotation is created using
> |, but not &. I don't see way either the direction or the use of &/| should
> make any difference in this case.
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> Btw: Can I assign this issue myself and just unable to find the button for
> that or do I lack permission?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
