[rules-users] Drools verifier

[Wolfgang Laun]

It's really worthwhile to add a DRL compile run before you let the verifier
do its work.
-W


On 16 March 2011 10:02, FrankVhh <frank.vanhoenshoven at agserv.eu> wrote:

> Hi Toni and Wolfgang,
>
> Thanks for your replies.
>
> First, to clarify my self, with "duplicate rules", I actually meant "rules
> 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
> 5.1.0.
>
> 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 might
> be
> valuable information in there. Besides, the question whether this
> information is valuable or not, doesn't matter, it just doesn't show and it
> should.
>
> Regards,
> Frank
>
>
> 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
> 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 &lt;toni.rikkola at 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
> >> 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
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools-java-rules-engine.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-verifier-tp2681002p2686028.html
> Sent from the Drools - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110316/ae1be65f/attachment.html