It's really worthwhile to add a DRL compile run before you let the verifier
do its work.
On 16 March 2011 10:02, FrankVhh <frank.vanhoenshoven(a)agserv.eu> wrote:
Hi Toni and Wolfgang,
Thanks for your replies.
First, to clarify my self, with "duplicate rules", I actually meant
that are exactlly the same, but with other names". Moreover, I inserted the
verification just before rule execution, and execution runs fine. So, there
shouldn't be a compile error.
Removing the "then" part of a rule does not make any difference. It still
runs, but doesn't return any notes/warnings/errors in the ruleset.
Toni, I am not using one of the "M" versions. Drools verifier is version
As a general remark, I definitely agree that "gap analysis" often comes up
with some very unuseful information. I usually call those uncovered areas,
"women with beards" or "experienced juniors". However, there always
valuable information in there. Besides, the question whether this
information is valuable or not, doesn't matter, it just doesn't show and it
Toni Rikkola-2 wrote:
> Yes it can often be ignored and we need some configuration to silence the
> unwanted warnings. The current way is best for use cases like the
> table verification in Guvnor.
> Age is a good example. Person's age can't be less than 0 or more than
> The top number is difficult. 120 is pretty safe, but usually you should
> suspicious from ~90.
> So in the configurations you could set:
> Person.age 0-90 => check that they are covered
> Person.age 90-120 => check them, but make a notification
> You can of course do this today with custom verification rules. Just use
> clean verifier base and add your own verifier rules.
> On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>> 2011/3/15 Toni Rikkola &lt;toni.rikkola(a)gmail.com&gt;
>> The verifier can actually find some gaps from rule sets. For example
>> uncovered checks for number values.
>> If you have
>> Person( age <18 )
>> it gives a warning that you might want to cover Person( age >= 18 ).
>> I'd say that such a warning may not be very useful because
>> - in many cases you may not be interested in the "other" values at
>> - in some cases 18, 19,... is handled with Person( age < 50 ) with
>> salience (not recommended!),
>> - in many (other) cases you use a (low salience) "catch all" rule
>> handle facts not selected by 1st order rules,
>> Moreover, I'm thinking of using additional rules with Verifier, with one
>> of the primary targets being "magic numbers".
>> But Verifier is a fine achievement, and the confiugration is here to get
>> you what you want!
>> Toni Rikkola
>> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users mailing list
View this message in context:
Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
rules-users mailing list