Hi, I submited a patch with a solution for the error reported https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4261
Best On 25 February 2015 at 10:41, Silvestre Losada <[email protected]> wrote: > Done > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-4261 > > > > On 24 February 2015 at 19:35, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> could you open an issue and attach it there? That would be great. >> >> Best, >> >> Peter >> >> Am 24.02.2015 um 18:13 schrieb Silvestre Losada: >> >> Hi Peter, >>> >>> The problem happens if the Annotations are created by external analysis >>> engine, using something like this >>> >>> ENGINE TestAE; >>> Document{-> EXEC(TestAE,{TestType})}; >>> (TestType{-> UNMARKALL(TestType)}){PARTOFNEQ(TestType)}; >>> >>> It seems that ExecAction is removing the Type form RutaBasic.partOf >>> array >>> at some point of the execution. After that in PartOfNeqCondition in >>> method >>> check next condition is always returning false because the Type was >>> removed >>> previously from ruta basic. >>> >>> boolean partOf = beginAnchor.isPartOf(t) || endAnchor.isPartOf(t); >>> if (!partOf) { >>> return false; >>> } >>> >>> I have uima ruta test project that reproduces the error I can send to you >>> in zip file. >>> >>> Best. >>> >>> On 20 February 2015 at 20:41, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>>> >>>> hmmm, that's strange. When I apply the rules on the document "A B C D", >>>> only one T1 annotation remains. >>>> >>>> On which document did you test the rules? >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Peter >>>> >>>> Am 20.02.2015 um 09:17 schrieb Silvestre Losada: >>>> >>>> HI again, >>>> >>>>> Now I'm running into this problem >>>>> DECLARE T1; >>>>> "A B C D" -> T1; >>>>> "B" -> T1; >>>>> "C D" -> T1; >>>>> "D" -> T1; >>>>> >>>>> (T1{-> UNMARKALL(T1)}){PARTOFNEQ(T1)}; >>>>> >>>>> The ouput is >>>>> "A B C D" -> T1; >>>>> "D" -> T1; >>>>> >>>>> I suspect that this is because D is part of "A B C D" and "C D" >>>>> >>>>> Im using lastest version in trunk. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kind regards >>>>> >>>>> On 14 February 2015 at 09:29, Silvestre Losada < >>>>> [email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Thanks Peter, >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It seems to work. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 February 2015 at 22:18, Peter Klügl <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This should work just fine and should remove both contained >>>>>> annotations. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I just tested it with the current trunk and the following script: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> DECLARE T1; >>>>>>> "A B" -> T1; >>>>>>> "B" -> T1; >>>>>>> "B" -> T1; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> (T1{-> UNMARK(T1)}){PARTOFNEQ(T1)}; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If applied on the test "A B", only the largest annotation remains. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you test it with the current trunk in case I fixed the bug a few >>>>>>> minutes ago by accident. If not, can you give me more information >>>>>>> about >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> context of your rule? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Peter >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Am 12.02.2015 um 10:12 schrieb Silvestre Losada: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I dont know if this is a bug or if it is wokring well. I have the >>>>>>> >>>>>>> following >>>>>>>> annotations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AnnotationA >>>>>>>> begin:0 >>>>>>>> ends:8 >>>>>>>> id:1 >>>>>>>> AnnotationA >>>>>>>> begin:4 >>>>>>>> ends:8 >>>>>>>> id:2 >>>>>>>> AnnotationA >>>>>>>> begin: 4 >>>>>>>> ends:8 >>>>>>>> id:3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then if apply the following ruta >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (AnnotationA{-> UNMARK(AnnotationA)}){PARTOFNEQ(AnnotationA)}; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The output is >>>>>>>> AnnotationA >>>>>>>> begin:0 >>>>>>>> ends:8 >>>>>>>> id:1 >>>>>>>> AnnotationA >>>>>>>> begin: 4 >>>>>>>> ends:8 >>>>>>>> id:3 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I expect that annotations with id 2 and 3 will be removed. Is there >>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>> way >>>>>>>> to remove both >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kind regards >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >> >
