FOGL-9228 : Support multiple rules on an asset #50
Conversation
Signed-off-by: nandan <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would suggest adding a couple more unit tests
- The one you highlight in the Jira about rename and make sure it runs the rules for the new name and not the old after it has done the rename.
- A test for exclude if you have a rule after the exclude that uses the excluded asset name, just to make sure it doesn't crash.
- A split rule with a rule that modifies one of the assets created by the split, for example an exclude of one of the split assets
You can stay with the vector if you like, that is merely a nicety, but I think the extra unit tests are worth it and the handling of split.
At solemn point we should refactor this filter, the code has become a little out of hand with al the inline actions, but let's do this in a separate Jira rather than this one.
plugin.cpp
Outdated
| for (const auto& entry : assetActionMap) | ||
| { | ||
| std::regex regexPattern(entry.first); | ||
| if (std::regex_match(assetName, regexPattern)) | ||
| { | ||
| return entry.second; // Return the matched AssetAction object | ||
| matchedAction.push_back(entry.second); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If one of the actions is an asset rename action then the will fail of course.
| { | ||
| found = true; | ||
| break; | ||
| tracker->addAssetTrackingTuple(configCatName, newAssetName, string("Filter")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
After doing the split you should probably look for any rules defined for the newly created assets.
|
Another unit test to add would be a test that runs two rules with the same action. The one that is potentially a very common one would be two remove rules that remove two different datapoints in the same reading. |
…xists Signed-off-by: nandan <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: nandan <[email protected]>
|
This PR also fixed FOGL-9244 |
Signed-off-by: nandan <[email protected]>
No description provided.