Can you make few rules for us to test this with.
I have to say that the verifier is not perfect when it searches for redundancy,
so your rules might be too complex for it at the moment.
Toni
On Mar 16, 2011, at 1:29 PM, FrankVhh wrote:
> Hi Wolfgang,
>
> Yes, you are absolutely right about the path mistake. Can't believe I missed
> that. Fixing it removes the errors from the verifier.
>
> However, it still does not return the expected outputs...
>
> System.out.println(result.getVerifierData().getAll().isEmpty()); => returns
> false, which is as expected
>
> But the following statement still does not return anything.
> for (VerifierMessageBase base : result
>
> .getBySeverity(Severity.WARNING)) {
> System.out.println(base);
> }
>
> I'm sorry to take so much of your time, I really appreciate your efforts.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-verifier-tp2681002p2687459.html
> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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
