[rules-users] Drools verifier

[Toni Rikkola]

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 decision table verification in Guvnor.

Age is a good example. Person's age can't be less than 0 or more than 120. The top number is difficult. 120 is pretty safe, but usually you should be 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 a clean verifier base and add your own verifier rules.

Toni

On Mar 15, 2011, at 12:39 PM, Wolfgang Laun wrote:

> 2011/3/15 Toni Rikkola <toni.rikkola at gmail.com>
> 
> 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 all,
>    - in some cases 18, 19,... is handled with Person( age < 50 ) with low salience (not recommended!),
>    - in many (other) cases you use a (low salience) "catch all" rule to 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!
> 
> -W
> 
>  
> Toni Rikkola
> 
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110315/0f43f334/attachment.html