You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Evaluation of rules depends on the order at which these appear in the rules section of an archetype. Order should not matter and rules should first all be assessed before being executed.
The archetype below can be used for testing. Rule evaluation in the example will fail only if gender man is selected, while it has similar rules as for vrouw. Selecting man should make path Normwaarde man visible and hide that for Normwaarde vrouw and vice versa. With the rule for vrouw being placed above that for man, when man selected, the rule for vrouw is false and thereby ignored and for some reason a path for Normwaarde vrouw is still generated after rule evaluation probably because of the rule that assigns at95 to it without an explicit check for the value of gender.
Rule evaluation order now simply matters by definition of how this is implemented. Because of variable assignment and re-using fields set as a result of a previous rule.
Your assertions appear to be ambiguous. You assert normwaarden vrouw should always have a specific value, then you say it must not exists at the same time. That will not work. If you want normwaarden vrouw to be set only for women, put it inside the corresponding female rule implies assertion, chained with and. That will fix your problem properly.
I would say trying to fix this in the rule evaluator will cause loads of trouble.
Evaluation of rules depends on the order at which these appear in the
rules
section of an archetype. Order should not matter and rules should first all be assessed before being executed.The archetype below can be used for testing. Rule evaluation in the example will fail only if gender
man
is selected, while it has similar rules as forvrouw
. Selectingman
should make pathNormwaarde man
visible and hide that forNormwaarde vrouw
and vice versa. With the rule forvrouw
being placed above that forman
, whenman
selected, the rule forvrouw
isfalse
and thereby ignored and for some reason a path forNormwaarde vrouw
is still generated after rule evaluation probably because of the rule that assignsat95
to it without an explicit check for the value of gender.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: