[rules-users] QA features in BRMS

[Corneil du Plessis]

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 <esteban.aliverti at gmail.com 
> <mailto:esteban.aliverti at gmail.com>>
>
>     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 <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com
>     <mailto:wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>>
>
>         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 <benson.redhat at gmail.com
>         <mailto:benson.redhat at gmail.com>>:
>         > 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
>         <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com <mailto:wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>>
>         > wrote:
>         >>
>         >> Please define "conflict".
>         >> -W
>         >>
>         >> 2010/12/30 Benson Fung <benson.fung at redhat.com
>         <mailto:benson.fung at redhat.com>>:
>         >> > 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
>         <wolfgang.laun at gmail.com <mailto:wolfgang.laun at gmail.com>>
>         >> > 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 <benson.redhat at gmail.com
>         <mailto:benson.redhat at gmail.com>>:
>         >> >> > Hi,
>         >> >> >
>         >> >> > Can anyone know whether QA features can provide the
>         rule conflict
>         >> >> > checks?
>         >> >> >
>         >> >> >
>         >> >> > Thanks
>         >> >> >
>         >> >> > _______________________________________________
>         >> >> > rules-users mailing list
>         >> >> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>         <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>         >> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>         >> >> >
>         >> >> >
>         >> >> _______________________________________________
>         >> >> rules-users mailing list
>         >> >> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>         <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>         >> >> 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
>         >> > ||
>         >> > benson.fung at redhat.com <mailto:benson.fung at redhat.com> ||
>         http://www.hk.redhat.com||
>         >> >
>         >> > _______________________________________________
>         >> > rules-users mailing list
>         >> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>         <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>         >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>         >> >
>         >> >
>         >>
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> rules-users mailing list
>         >> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>         <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>         >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>         >
>         >
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > rules-users mailing list
>         > rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>         > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>         >
>         >
>
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         rules-users mailing list
>         rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rules-users mailing list
>     rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20101230/b1a301f4/attachment.html