[rules-users] QA features in BRMS

[Benson Fung]

Hi Esteban,

Could you elaborate with your wordings 'audit rules'?  I mean if there are
two rules with same conditions but different consequences within a package,
it could not be an error/warning as you said.  Could you give me an
example/typical situation?

Thanks for your explaination.



2010/12/30 Esteban Aliverti <esteban.aliverti at gmail.com>

> This is because the scenario you are describing is not always an
> error/warning. Maybe for you it is an error, but for other people could be a
> typical situation. I.e: if you have audit rules.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> Esteban Aliverti
> - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com
> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
>
>
> 2010/12/30 Benson Fung <benson.redhat at gmail.com>
>
>> 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>
>>
>> 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
>>> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
>>>
>>>
>>> 2010/12/30 Wolfgang Laun <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>:
>>>> > 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>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Please define "conflict".
>>>> >> -W
>>>> >>
>>>> >> 2010/12/30 Benson Fung <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>
>>>> >> > 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>:
>>>> >> >> > Hi,
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Can anyone know whether QA features can provide the rule
>>>> conflict
>>>> >> >> > checks?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Thanks
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> >> > rules-users mailing list
>>>> >> >> > 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
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > --
>>>> >> > 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 || http://www.hk.redhat.com||
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > rules-users mailing list
>>>> >> > 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
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > rules-users mailing list
>>>> > 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101231/b2279afe/attachment.html