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.vanhoensho...@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 <toni.rikk...@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@lists.jboss.org > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-users mailing list > > rules-users@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@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >
_______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users