-----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users- bounces(a)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 <ronalbury(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users