Hi Esteban, Could you elaborate with your wordings 'audit rules'? I mean if there are two rules with same conditions but different consequences within a package, it could not be an error/warning as you said. Could you give me an example/typical situation?
Thanks for your explaination. 2010/12/30 Esteban Aliverti <[email protected]> > This is because the scenario you are describing is not always an > error/warning. Maybe for you it is an error, but for other people could be a > typical situation. I.e: if you have audit rules. > > Best Regards, > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > > Esteban Aliverti > - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com > - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com > > > 2010/12/30 Benson Fung <[email protected]> > >> 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]> >> >> 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 >>> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com >>> >>> >>> 2010/12/30 Wolfgang Laun <[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]>: >>>> > 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]> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> Please define "conflict". >>>> >> -W >>>> >> >>>> >> 2010/12/30 Benson Fung <[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]> >>>> >> > 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]>: >>>> >> >> > Hi, >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > Can anyone know whether QA features can provide the rule >>>> conflict >>>> >> >> > checks? >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > Thanks >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >> >> > 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 >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > -- >>>> >> > 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] || http://www.hk.redhat.com|| >>>> >> > >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >> > 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 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > 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 >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
