[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6404?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Peter Klügl updated UIMA-6404:
------------------------------
Fix Version/s: (was: 2.9.0ruta)
> Ruta: @ with quantifier ignores matches
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-6404
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-6404
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Ruta
> Affects Versions: 2.8.1ruta, 3.1.0ruta
> Reporter: Michael Stenger
> Assignee: Peter Klügl
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.1.1ruta
>
>
> Hi.
> it seems combining the start anchor with a (minmax) quantifier causes the
> interpreter to miss what I would consider matches in cases where @ is put
> with inner rule elements like so:
> {code:java}
> (W @W W)[2,2];
> // or
> (W @W W W)[3,4];
> // or
> (W W @W W)[2,3];
> {code}
> On the other hand,
> {code:java}
> (W W W w)[2,2];
> {code}
> would match passages as expected. I suspect this is caused by the changed
> matching order within the composed rule element when it is applied multiple
> times.
> Minimal Example:
> Script:
> {noformat}
> (W @W W W)[2,2]{-> T1};
> (W W @W W)[2,2]{-> T2};{noformat}
> Text:
> {noformat}
> omega alpha beta gamma omega alpha beta gamma omega alpha{noformat}
> Expected matches:
> * T1, T2: omega alpha beta gamma omega alpha beta gamma
> * T1, T2: alpha beta gamma omega alpha beta gamma omega
> * T1, T2: beta gamma omega alpha beta gamma omega alpha
> Actual matches:
> * T2: beta gamma omega alpha beta gamma omega alpha
> Or, since I could not find anything on the intended behaviour in such cases
> in the Guide, the broader question is how the interpreter is supposed to
> handle @ in a composed rule element that is also quantified. E.g. is it
> supposed to ignore the anchor from the second application (on the same match)
> onwards?
> Best, Michael
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.20.1#820001)
