search

dmn-tck / tck

Decision Model and Notation Technology Compatibility Kit
https://dmn-tck.github.io/tck
51 stars 36 forks source link

DMN 1.5 - extra assertions for the range properties for `=` and `!=`. #671

Open StrayAlien opened 4 months ago

StrayAlien commented 4 months ago

I have changed the structure of the tests to make then less spread out. In effect, each range test asserts on a context of its property values. Keeps stuff together. All the previous test assertions are still here.

The values I am asserting on here are:

expression start included start end end included
=10 true 10 10 true
!=10 false 10 10 false

This is not covered in the spec, so, comments welcome.

SimonRinguette commented 1 month ago

@StrayAlien I could see =10 as a range but !=10 is two ranges: <10 and >10. The way you have it there (10..10) can't return true and does not represent != 10.

StrayAlien commented 1 month ago

Hi @SimonRinguette ... exactly, and now we're seeing some of the weirdness of it. :-). Two ranges?

A little more here: https://github.com/dmn-tck/tck/issues/667

FEEL supports a compact syntax for a range of values, useful in decision table test cells and elsewhere. Ranges can be syntactically represented either: a) as a comparison operator and a single endpoint (grammar rule 7.a.) b) .. etc

If a range can be expressed as a "comparison operator and a single endpoint", then by implication a "comparison operator and a single endpoint" should be able to be expressed as a range?

opatrascoiu commented 1 month ago

@StrayAlien The paragraph that you mentioned talks about syntactic representation (e.g. one object in the AST that contains the operator and the endpoint). The same section contains also references at the end to several tables that describe the semantics of ranges: boolean lambdas.

What the spec does not say in examples is the values of range properties for the != range (e.g. start included and start).

I don't think it makes sense to evaluate (!=10).start and(!=).end and hence treat them as errors (e.g. return null).

StrayAlien commented 1 month ago

Thanks @opatrascoiu - if that is the case - cool - we should get it into the spec - perhaps the != comparison operator makes no sense to be described as a range.

baldimir commented 1 month ago

From discussion on the meeting: (!=10) should be raised as a ticket to DMN OMG, asking for clarification or modification to the spec.

opatrascoiu commented 1 month ago

@StrayAlien I suggest commenting out test range_012 until the matter is clarified by RTF.

The rest of the other tests look good to me.

SimonRinguette commented 6 days ago

Also good with the test cases excluding range_012

baldimir commented 5 days ago

@StrayAlien could you please take a look, based on the last comments from Simon and Octavian?