[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1277?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16223580#comment-16223580
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on METRON-1277:
----------------------------------------
Github user jjmeyer0 commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/814#discussion_r147555077
--- Diff:
metron-stellar/stellar-common/src/test/java/org/apache/metron/stellar/dsl/functions/MatchTest.java
---
@@ -0,0 +1,202 @@
+/*
+ * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one
+ * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file
+ * distributed with this work for additional information
+ * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file
+ * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the
+ * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance
+ * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
+ *
+ * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
+ *
+ * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
+ * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
+ * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
+ * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
+ * limitations under the License.
+ */
+package org.apache.metron.stellar.dsl.functions;
+
+import static
org.apache.metron.stellar.common.utils.StellarProcessorUtils.run;
+import static
org.apache.metron.stellar.common.utils.StellarProcessorUtils.runPredicate;
+
+import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableMap;
+import java.util.HashMap;
+import java.util.List;
+import java.util.Map;
+import org.apache.metron.stellar.dsl.DefaultVariableResolver;
+import org.apache.metron.stellar.dsl.ParseException;
+import org.junit.Assert;
+import org.junit.Ignore;
+import org.junit.Test;
+
+public class MatchTest {
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ public void testMatchLambda() {
+ Assert.assertTrue(runPredicate("match { 1 >= 0 : ()-> true }", new
HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 0);
+ }}));
+ Assert.assertTrue(
+ runPredicate("match { foo == 0 : ()-> true, default : ()-> false
}", new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 0);
+ }}));
+
+ Assert.assertFalse(
+ runPredicate("match { foo == 0 : ()-> true, default : ()-> false
}", new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 1);
+ }}));
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(
+ runPredicate("match { foo == 0 : ()-> false, foo == 1 : ()-> true,
default : ()-> false }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 1);
+ }}));
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(runPredicate(
+ "match { foo == 0 : ()-> bFalse, foo == 1 : ()-> bTrue, default :
()-> bFalse }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 1);
+ put("bFalse", false);
+ put("bTrue", true);
+ }}));
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(runPredicate(
+ "match { foo == 0 : ()-> bFalse, foo == 1 : ()-> bTrue, default :
()-> bFalse }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 1);
+ put("bFalse", false);
+ put("bTrue", true);
+ }}));
+
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ @Ignore
+ public void testMatchMAPEvaluation() {
+
+ // NOTE: THIS IS BROKEN RIGHT NOW.
+
+ String expr = "match{ var1 : MAP(['foo', 'bar'], (x) -> TO_UPPER(x))
}";
+
+ Object o = run(expr, ImmutableMap.of("foo", "foo", "bar", "bar",
"var1", true));
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(o instanceof List);
+
+ List<String> result = (List<String>) o;
+
+ Assert.assertEquals(2, result.size());
+ Assert.assertEquals("FOO", result.get(0));
+ Assert.assertEquals("BAR", result.get(1));
+}
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ public void testMatchRegexMatch() {
+ final Map<String, String> variableMap = new HashMap<String, String>()
{{
+ put("numbers", "12345");
+ put("numberPattern", "\\d(\\d)(\\d).*");
+ put("letters", "abcde");
+ put("empty", "");
+ }};
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(runPredicate("match{
REGEXP_MATCH(numbers,numberPattern): true, default : false}", new
DefaultVariableResolver(v -> variableMap.get(v),v ->
variableMap.containsKey(v))));
+ Assert.assertFalse(runPredicate("match{
REGEXP_MATCH(letters,numberPattern) : true, default :false}", new
DefaultVariableResolver(v -> variableMap.get(v),v ->
variableMap.containsKey(v))));
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ public void testMatchBareStatements() {
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(runPredicate("match { foo == 0 : bFalse, foo == 1 :
bTrue, default : false }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 1);
+ put("bFalse", false);
+ put("bTrue", true);
+ }}));
+
+ Assert.assertEquals("warning",
+ run("match{ threat.triage.level < 10 : 'info', threat.triage.level
< 20 : 'warning', default : 'critical' }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("threat.triage.level", 15);
+ }}));
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ public void testWithFunction() {
+ Assert.assertEquals("WARNING",
+ run("match{ threat.triage.level < 10 : 'info', threat.triage.level
< 20 : TO_UPPER('warning'), default : 'critical' }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("threat.triage.level", 15);
+ }}));
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ public void testWithFunctionMultiArgs() {
+ Assert.assertEquals("false",
+ run("match{ threat.triage.level < 10 : 'info', threat.triage.level
< 20 : TO_STRING(IS_ENCODING(other,'BASE32')), default : 'critical' }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("threat.triage.level", 15);
+ put("other", "value");
+ }}));
+
+ Assert.assertEquals(false,
+ run("match{ threat.triage.level < 10 : 'info', threat.triage.level
< 20 : IS_ENCODING(other,'BASE32'), default : 'critical' }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("threat.triage.level", 15);
+ put("other", "value");
+ }}));
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ public void testLogical() {
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(
+ runPredicate("match { foo == 0 OR bar == 'yes' : ()-> true,
default : ()-> false }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 1);
+ put("bar", "yes");
+ }}));
+
+ Assert.assertTrue(
+ runPredicate("match { foo == 0 AND bar == 'yes' : ()-> true,
default : ()-> false }",
+ new HashMap() {{
+ put("foo", 0);
+ put("bar", "yes");
+ }}));
+ }
+
+ @Test
+ @SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
+ public void testMatchErrorNoDefault() {
+
+ boolean caught = false;
--- End diff --
We shouldn't use a boolean flag to determine if an exception was thrown. If
you just want to expect an exception we should use `@Test(expected =
ParseException.class)`. For more indepth testing we should use `@Rule public
ExpectedException thrown = ExpectedException.none();`.
> STELLAR Add Match functionality to language
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Key: METRON-1277
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/METRON-1277
> Project: Metron
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Otto Fowler
> Assignee: Otto Fowler
>
> From dev list:
> ------------
> Hi All,
> It's high time that Stellar supports some form of conditional that is
> beyond if/then/else. Right now, the way to do fall-through conditionals is:
> if x < 10 then 'info' else if x >= 10 && x <= 20 then 'warn' else 'critical'
> That becomes non-scalable very quickly. I wanted to facilitate a
> discussion with the community on the syntax. I'll give a few options and
> you guys/gals can come up with your own suggestions too, but I wanted to
> frame teh conversation.
> *MAP-BASED SWITCH*
> With the advent of METRON-1254 (https://github.com/apache/metron/pull/801),
> we could enable (from a language perspective in Stellar) multi-part
> conditionals or switch/case style statements. To wit:
> MAP_GET(true, { x < 10 : 'info', x >= 10 && x <= 20 : 'warn', x > 20 :
> 'critical' })
> Or, with a convenience function:
> CASE( { x < 10 : 'info', x >= 10 && x <= 20 : 'warn', x > 20 : 'critical' }
> )
> The issue with this is that the last true condition wins because we're
> using a map.
> *LIST-BASED SWITCH*
> We could correct this by adding a list of pairs construction to stellar:
> CASE( [ x < 10 : 'info', x <= 20 : 'warn'], 'critical')
> This would enable us to allow the first true condition to win, so the
> second condition can be simpler and we could pass a default return value as
> the final argument.
> The downside to this, is that it requires a language enhancement (the list
> of pairs construction you see there).
> *LAMBDA FUNCTION-BASED SWITCH*
> Some of the problems with the previous statements are that every
> conditional has to be evaluated and there is no opportunity to short
> circuit. They're all evaluated at parse-time rather than execution time.
> We could, instead, construct a lambda function approach to this and support
> short-circuiting in even complex conditionals:
> CASE( real_variable_name, [ x -> x < 10 ? 'info', x -> x <= 20 ? 'warn' ],
> 'critical')
> or
> CASE( real_variable_name, [ x -> if x < 10 then 'info', x -> if x <= 20
> then 'warn' ], 'critical')
> This would require lessening ?: (if/then/else) syntax to support to enable
> just if without else conditions. This also has the benefit of allowing
> simplifying the expression due to lambda function variable renaming
> (real_variable_name can be much more complex (or even an expression) than
> 'x'.
> Creative other approaches to this are appreciated!
> Thanks,
> Casey
> ----------------
> and ->
>
> How about this:
> match(VAR_TO_VAL_ASSIGNMENT+) { BOOLEAN_STATEMENT(VALS) : LAMBDA(VALS),
> BOOLEAN_STATEMENT(VALS) : LAMBDA(VALS) , LAMBDA(VALS)}
> * match = new keyword
> * match takes variable number of assignments, where the val assigned to is
> available in the evaluation and the lambdas
> * match {} contains comma separated list of a statement that evaluates to a
> boolean and a lambda
> * LAMBDA is executed on match, and it’s value is returned
> * no matches returns null or return of optional final statement, which is a
> LAMBDA without a BOOLEAN_STATEMENT
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)
