We did a project where we developed a rule console to manage the lifecycle of rules by managing unit-tests and scenario tests and executing those on rule changes to ensure deployed rules pass the tests.

On 30/12/2010 15:03, Benson Fung wrote:
Yes, I tried QA analysis. But it only can find out the problems of the individual rules like what you said. I tried to develop two rules with sames conditions but different consequences and do the QA analysis, it cannot detect it unfortunately. :(




2010/12/30 Esteban Aliverti <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>

    I think QA analysis should find some of those problems. Did you
    try it? As far as I know, it looks for range completeness, missing
    gaps, etc.

    Best Regards,

    XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

    Esteban Aliverti
    - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com <http://www.plugtree.com>
    - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com


    2010/12/30 Wolfgang Laun <[email protected]
    <mailto:[email protected]>>

        The general case would be extremely difficult to solve. It
        would require heavy expression manipulation. Consider a very
        simple variation:
           X($f: foo)
           Y(bar == $f)
        as compared to
           Y($b: bar)
           X(foo == $b)

        And you can play this game at any level of complexity.

        And even your "straightforward" case would require the
        consideration of rule attributes, since there would not be a
        conflict if they are in different agenda groups, etc.


        -W



        2010/12/30 Benson Fung <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>:
        > The conflict is like :
        >
        > E.g.
        > If (X = 90) then Score = 10;
        > If (X = 90) then Score = 100;
        >
        > Can the BRMS detect this?
        >
        >
        >
        > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Wolfgang Laun
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
        > wrote:
        >>
        >> Please define "conflict".
        >> -W
        >>
        >> 2010/12/30 Benson Fung <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>:
        >> > I would like to check if there is any conflict among the
        created rules
        >> > in
        >> > the BRMS 5.1.  Can the QA/Verify can check this out?
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 5:24 PM, Wolfgang Laun
        <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
        >> > wrote:
        >> >>
        >> >> Please don't assume that everybody knows which
        "features" and
        >> >> which "conflicts" and which "checks" you have in mind.
        >> >> -W
        >> >>
        >> >> 2010/12/30 Benson Fung <[email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>>:
        >> >> > Hi,
        >> >> >
        >> >> > Can anyone know whether QA features can provide the
        rule conflict
        >> >> > checks?
        >> >> >
        >> >> >
        >> >> > Thanks
        >> >> >
        >> >> > _______________________________________________
        >> >> > rules-users mailing list
        >> >> > [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
        >> >> >
        >> >> >
        >> >> _______________________________________________
        >> >> rules-users mailing list
        >> >> [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        >> >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
        >> >
        >> >
        >> >
        >> > --
        >> > Benson Fung
        >> > Solution Architect, Global Services, Greater China
        >> > | Redhat Hong Kong Limited || 45/F., The Lee Gardens, 33
        Hysan Avenue,
        >> > Causeway Bay, Hong Kong || Office : 852-31802332 || Cell
        : 852-98369898
        >> > ||
        >> > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ||
        http://www.hk.redhat.com||
        >> >
        >> > _______________________________________________
        >> > rules-users mailing list
        >> > [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
        >> >
        >> >
        >>
        >> _______________________________________________
        >> rules-users mailing list
        >> [email protected]
        <mailto:[email protected]>
        >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
        >
        >
        > _______________________________________________
        > rules-users mailing list
        > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
        >
        >


        _______________________________________________
        rules-users mailing list
        [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
        https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users



    _______________________________________________
    rules-users mailing list
    [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
    https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users



_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Reply via email to