RFR: 8050: JMC Automated Analysis should improve the messages when ignoring to evaluate some rules.

[Suchita Chaturvedi]

On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 11:57:58 GMT, Marcus Hirt <hirt at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Also, it would perhaps be less confusing if there wasn't an implicit double negation when presenting the results. Instead of saying: "The rule was not evaluated because the following requirements were not met: X - AVAILABLE, Y - ENABLED." Perhaps instead say, The rule could not be evaluated because: No events available of X, The Y event was disabled."
> 
> Now, the first time I read it, I read it as X was available, and I was momentarily confused as to it being available would be a problem.

The event names and their corresponding status which I have shown is the desired / expected combinations. If all the events are present as per the status mentioned then only rule will be calculated. We can show the actual status also but then we need to evaluate the presence of event with their corresponding status just to show on this screen. Because the actual implementation logic is implemented considering fail fast approach i.e. if any one of the condition is not met it will just say Ignored.

To be more clear: For ex: To evaluate any rule there are 3 events required with status as Available (A), Enabled (E).

Requirement : Event 1 - A , Event 2 .- E, Event 3 - A.
Actual : Event 1 - D , Event 2 .- E, Event 3 - A.

As per current logic, rule engine will check only for Event 1 - D . Since condition is not met. It will say Ignore. So on this screen, we wont have information about the actual status of Event 2 and Event 3. Although, we can implement this logic just to show the actual status but it will be overhead. That's why I preferred to stick with the Requirement rather than Actual.

Your thoughts will be appreciated on this. I can implement accordingly.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jmc/pull/481#issuecomment-1521363683