Macro Variables

[thomasschmeidl]

Hi Alex,

my setting: HM6.51c on XP SP2 running as application (for testing)

In the string that represents a value of a UDV you may use the name of another macro variable(s)

This is very helpful and works, but now there seems to be a problem with the following variables:

udv_nofallback: (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP') or (%Recurrences%<3))

udv_warnbc1: (('%SuggestedReply%'<'100') and ('%SuggestedReply%'>'10')) and (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP') or (%Recurrences%<3))

udv_warnbc2: (('%SuggestedReply%'<'100') and ('%SuggestedReply%'>'10')) and %udv_nofallback%

IMHO udv_warnbc1 and udv_warnbc2 should be equal, but if you you use them in the advanced status processing dialogue

[x] use Warning status if %udv_warnbc1%
is ok, whereas

[x] use Warning status if %udv_warnbc2%
produces reply "illegal expression"

The problem seems to be the (%Recurrences%<3) as there is no error when it is replaced by another expression.

Regards

Thomas

[JuergenF]

udv_nofallback: (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP') or (%Recurrences%<3))

This works
udv_nofallback: (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP') or ("%Recurrences%"<3))
this too
udv_nofallback: (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP') or ("%Recurrences%"<"3"))

Maybe it can help analysing the problem

All the best for 2007

Juergen

[KS-Soft]

udv_nofallback: (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP') or (%Recurrences%<3))
udv_warnbc1: (('%SuggestedReply%'<'100') and ('%SuggestedReply%'>'10')) and (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP') or (%Recurrences%<3))
udv_warnbc2: (('%SuggestedReply%'<'100') and ('%SuggestedReply%'>'10')) and %udv_nofallback%
IMHO udv_warnbc1 and udv_warnbc2 should be equal

udv_warnbc1 <> udv_warnbc2.
Why?
udv_warnbc1 uses variables that can be resolved in 1 step.
udv_warnbc2 uses variable (%udv_nofallback%) that points to another variable that uses more variables - 3 level recursion.

Regards
Alex

[thomasschmeidl]

OK

So I understand that:
- you can use macro variables in an udv
- you can use udvs, which contain a string, in an udv
- you cannot use udvs that contain other macro variables or udvs in an udv

1. Is that correct?

2. Is there a reason for the fact that there is no error message with the following combination?
udv_nofallback: (('%Status%'=='Warning') or ('%SimpleStatus%'=='UP'))
udv_warnbc2: (('%SuggestedReply%'<'100') and ('%SuggestedReply%'>'10')) and %udv_nofallback%

3. Will the behaviour be changed to "more-level-recursion" (would be helpful )?

4. Could you add a sentence about it to the manual - or did I miss it?

Cheers

Thomas

[KS-Soft]

- you can use macro variables in an udv
- you can use udvs, which contain a string, in an udv
- you cannot use udvs that contain other macro variables or udvs in an udv
1. Is that correct?

Almost. You may use UDV variable that refers to another UDV variable, but that 2nd variable cannot refer to test related macro variables.

Is there a reason for the fact that there is no error message with the following combination?

H'm... probably expression evaluator cannot catch all possible errors. Will check that

Will the behaviour be changed to "more-level-recursion"

Do you really need this? May be you are trying to use complicated configuration schemes without a reason?

Could you add a sentence about it to the manual - or did I miss it?

Officially recurrences are not supported

Regards
Alex

[thomasschmeidl]

Thanx for your work and your explanations.

Do you really need this? May be you are trying to use complicated configuration schemes without a reason?

I set up many udv_s which are absolutely helpful for the "normal" and "warning" expressions. 15 of them contain "%udv_nofallback%" which prevents status switching back to "warning" after it was "bad" three times (otherwise new actions would be triggered after every status change). To avoid redundancies and to facilitate changes in the future it would help to substitute this part of the expression. Now you may judge whether one really needs this.

But I understand, that it is more important now to release a final version of HM with new statuses.

Cheers

Thomas

[KS-Soft]

May be we improve some code but not right now. We are testing 6.52 release, I hope it will be available for download next week

Regards
Alex