Re: [rules-users] This (ordered) record validation approach is working
Is this presentation available anywhere? > -Original Message- > From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- > boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun > Sent: 08 December 2011 07:13 > To: Rules Users List > Subject: Re: [rules-users] This (ordered) record validation approach is > working > > In my Rules Fest 2011 boot camp "Rule-Based Programming Design Patterns" > I presented a generic solution using linked rule engines for this and similar > problems. > -W > > > On 08/12/2011, ronalbury wrote: > > I didn't get any feedback when I posted earlier today, so I went ahead > > and implemented what I thought would work ... and I figured I should > > share it here since it seems to be working pretty well. > > > > I created a Rule Flow as follows: > >A Rule-Flow-Group that validates the arrays. Unfortunately I > > sometimes get multiple related arrays of records instead of a single array > > of > records. > > I confirm that records with mandatory values have arrays with at least > > one element, and confirm that the related arrays are of equal length. > > Errors are logged. > > > >A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that manages inserts. The data > > actually comes to me as one data structure comprised of sub-records of > > various types, and I have DRL files for each record type. Some of the > > sub-records are optional, and since subsequent rules would erroneously > > flag empty sub-records as errors I have rules here which only allow > > optional records containing values to be inserted into the system. I > > am currently using for-loops in the THEN section of some rules to deal > > with the array problem and would like to know if there is a better > > way. No errors are generated here. > > > >A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that validates data. The data is all > > sent to me as Strings, even though many of the values are numbers, dates, > etc. > > This Rule-Flow group tests the various fields using regular > > expressions, and if a regular expression fails then the record is flagged as > having an error. > > Optional fields are dealt with by the regular expression allowing a blank. > > Errors are logged. > > > >A Diverging Gateway that splits the data into two ... records > > without validation errors are allowed to progress to the > > value-checking Rule-Flow group ... those with errors have nothing more > > done to them. I realize that I could, for instance, let records with > > bogus numbers thru as long as my string-to-integer routine is robust, > > however I don't want to flag the same record multiple times (once by > > reg-ex and then again by the next Rule-Flow-Group). > > > >A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that checks the values and ranges of > > the numbers, dates, etc, and does other types of validation (e.g. if > > fieldA has a value greater than 20 then fieldB must be set to "XYZ"). > > Errors are logged. > > > > > > This Rule-Flow approach currently seems to be solving all of my > > problems, and it allows me to keep the rules simple and well > > structured such that most of them are reusable in other parts of our > system. > > > > I'm interested in getting feedback on this approach ... it seems to be > > working pretty well for me. It allows me to deal with ordering issues > > and many of the if/else issues, while keeping the rules simple enough > > for our non-technical analysts to review without needing a developer > > to sit next to them. > > > > I realize this is a pretty mundane application for a powerful rules > > system, but it seems like a good fit nonetheless. > > > > Thanks > >Ron > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/This-ordered-record-validation-appro > > ach-is-working-tp3568933p3568933.html > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > ___ > > rules-users mailing list > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > ___ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ** This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you hav
Re: [rules-users] This (ordered) record validation approach is working
In my Rules Fest 2011 boot camp "Rule-Based Programming Design Patterns" I presented a generic solution using linked rule engines for this and similar problems. -W On 08/12/2011, ronalbury wrote: > I didn't get any feedback when I posted earlier today, so I went ahead and > implemented what I thought would work ... and I figured I should share it > here since it seems to be working pretty well. > > I created a Rule Flow as follows: >A Rule-Flow-Group that validates the arrays. Unfortunately I sometimes > get multiple related arrays of records instead of a single array of records. > I confirm that records with mandatory values have arrays with at least one > element, and confirm that the related arrays are of equal length. Errors > are logged. > >A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that manages inserts. The data actually > comes to me as one data structure comprised of sub-records of various types, > and I have DRL files for each record type. Some of the sub-records are > optional, and since subsequent rules would erroneously flag empty > sub-records as errors I have rules here which only allow optional records > containing values to be inserted into the system. I am currently using > for-loops in the THEN section of some rules to deal with the array problem > and would like to know if there is a better way. No errors are generated > here. > >A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that validates data. The data is all sent > to me as Strings, even though many of the values are numbers, dates, etc. > This Rule-Flow group tests the various fields using regular expressions, and > if a regular expression fails then the record is flagged as having an error. > Optional fields are dealt with by the regular expression allowing a blank. > Errors are logged. > >A Diverging Gateway that splits the data into two ... records without > validation errors are allowed to progress to the value-checking Rule-Flow > group ... those with errors have nothing more done to them. I realize that > I could, for instance, let records with bogus numbers thru as long as my > string-to-integer routine is robust, however I don't want to flag the same > record multiple times (once by reg-ex and then again by the next > Rule-Flow-Group). > >A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that checks the values and ranges of the > numbers, dates, etc, and does other types of validation (e.g. if fieldA has > a value greater than 20 then fieldB must be set to "XYZ"). Errors are > logged. > > > This Rule-Flow approach currently seems to be solving all of my problems, > and it allows me to keep the rules simple and well structured such that most > of them are reusable in other parts of our system. > > I'm interested in getting feedback on this approach ... it seems to be > working pretty well for me. It allows me to deal with ordering issues and > many of the if/else issues, while keeping the rules simple enough for our > non-technical analysts to review without needing a developer to sit next to > them. > > I realize this is a pretty mundane application for a powerful rules system, > but it seems like a good fit nonetheless. > > Thanks >Ron > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/This-ordered-record-validation-approach-is-working-tp3568933p3568933.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > ___ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
[rules-users] This (ordered) record validation approach is working
I didn't get any feedback when I posted earlier today, so I went ahead and implemented what I thought would work ... and I figured I should share it here since it seems to be working pretty well. I created a Rule Flow as follows: A Rule-Flow-Group that validates the arrays. Unfortunately I sometimes get multiple related arrays of records instead of a single array of records. I confirm that records with mandatory values have arrays with at least one element, and confirm that the related arrays are of equal length. Errors are logged. A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that manages inserts. The data actually comes to me as one data structure comprised of sub-records of various types, and I have DRL files for each record type. Some of the sub-records are optional, and since subsequent rules would erroneously flag empty sub-records as errors I have rules here which only allow optional records containing values to be inserted into the system. I am currently using for-loops in the THEN section of some rules to deal with the array problem and would like to know if there is a better way. No errors are generated here. A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that validates data. The data is all sent to me as Strings, even though many of the values are numbers, dates, etc. This Rule-Flow group tests the various fields using regular expressions, and if a regular expression fails then the record is flagged as having an error. Optional fields are dealt with by the regular expression allowing a blank. Errors are logged. A Diverging Gateway that splits the data into two ... records without validation errors are allowed to progress to the value-checking Rule-Flow group ... those with errors have nothing more done to them. I realize that I could, for instance, let records with bogus numbers thru as long as my string-to-integer routine is robust, however I don't want to flag the same record multiple times (once by reg-ex and then again by the next Rule-Flow-Group). A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that checks the values and ranges of the numbers, dates, etc, and does other types of validation (e.g. if fieldA has a value greater than 20 then fieldB must be set to "XYZ"). Errors are logged. This Rule-Flow approach currently seems to be solving all of my problems, and it allows me to keep the rules simple and well structured such that most of them are reusable in other parts of our system. I'm interested in getting feedback on this approach ... it seems to be working pretty well for me. It allows me to deal with ordering issues and many of the if/else issues, while keeping the rules simple enough for our non-technical analysts to review without needing a developer to sit next to them. I realize this is a pretty mundane application for a powerful rules system, but it seems like a good fit nonetheless. Thanks Ron -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/This-ordered-record-validation-approach-is-working-tp3568933p3568933.html Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
