I gone through one validation rule where I saw <> this symbol. Can anyone let me know what is this symbol stands for.
Regards,
Dhanashri P.
"Not equals", alternative way of writing !=.
https://help.salesforce.com/articleView?id=customize_functions.htm&type=5 (in "logical operators" section)
I think they did it to make move to validation rules simpler for people who are used to MS Excel.
Similarly you can write boolean logic "programmer style" (condition1 && condition2 || condition3) or Excel-like (OR(AND(condition1, condition2), condition3)).
Related
I've been drawing a sequence diagram of a module recently, while reverse engineering.
I encountered a control statement, and it is like,
if (func_A() == True)
{
DoSomeThing();
}
else
{
DoSomeThingElse();
}
The problem is how to draw the condition?
As I mentioned, It is reverse engineering. The code cannot be modified now.
I drew two diagrams, and I don't know which way is right,
The first one is this, I think it's wrong because it doesn't show the function call as a message from A to B.
This is the second, It shows a message func_A.
What do you think about to do this right?
To complete the other answer there is anyway a problem in the second proposal because we do not know if in [func_A() == True] you reuse the value return by the previous call or you do a second call, to avoid that add the explicit return in your diagram :
Out of that do you know the activities ? A sequence diagram is "just" an interaction while an activity is a behavior and can be more adapted :
It depends. If func_A is an operation defined in Object2 the second representation would be correct. The first does not tell where the operation is defined. Most likely (!) one would interpret func_A as an operation local to ObjectA which your code seems to say. (Btw. you have two completely different object sets AB vs. 12 in your examples.) But that is uncertain. So the 2nd variant is more explicit (and correct).
In any case I advise to not overdo SDs with fragments as "graphical programming" doesn't make things easier to read (my practical experience). It's excellent to show message flows in various collaborations. But when it comes to conditions it's getting messy very soon. A better way is to create different sub-diagrams or even use pseudo code if there are too nested if conditions. In many cases such if clauses are a good fit for state machines.
I wanted to try the following rule:
(not Person)(?x) -> NonHuman(?x) which is provided here - https://github.com/protegeproject/swrlapi/wiki/SWRLLanguageFAQ#does-swrl-support-classical-negation
and i got this:
Is classical negation supported in Protege 5.5.0? If yes, how I can make the following rule to be okay?
Thanks in advance!
From https://github.com/protegeproject/swrlapi/issues/63:
Unfortunately, the SWRLAPI's parser does not support OWL class expressions in rules.
There is no timeline for their inclusion.
Fortunately, one can use the Rules view (Windows > Views > Ontology Views > Rules):
Rule: (not Person)(?x) -> NonHuman(?x) is parsed correctly and works as intended.
Actually, you do not need SWRL in this particlular case. Just write (not Person) SubClassOf NonHuman in the General class axioms section, or define NonPerson first, if you don't like GCI axioms.
Don't forget about the OWA.
In my code I got a bunch of bugs lately due to typing things like if(a = b).
This may sound silly, but I really do need a rule to get rid of this.
especially when I type array.find(val => val.id = 0).
I know that there is a rule to enforce boolean expressions in simple statements like if and for and so on...
But is there also a rule which enforces the same in like funtions?
you can add "triple-equals": true in your tslint.json file to enforce the triple equals.
Have to implement scenario where both && and || should work in one expression like below
ng-class = "{'class_name' : condition1 || condition2 || (condition3 && condition4)}"
Its possible if yes then how?
It should work the way you wrote it, if it doesn't make sure you have the right starting and closing of brackets and parenthesis. It would be helpful if you post your code here. If you want to understand more using ng-class, you can go through the following well-written article.
https://scotch.io/tutorials/the-many-ways-to-use-ngclass
#Dan Thank you so much for your comment.
as question This not working directly but using the function works perfect.
How do I handle more than one condition (with different boolean expressions) in a UML state machine transition (as guard)?
Example:
In this example I would like to add more than only one condition (Tries < 3) in the transition from "logging in" to "Logged In" like discribed in the note.
How to handle this UML compliant?
Simply spoken (and to focus on the needed step)
put a boolean condition like above in the Guard. This can be any text. You can write C-style or plain text. I'm not sure about OCL here, but that's for academic purpose anyway (my opinion).
N.B. Your diagram shows Tries = 3 which should be a Guard also (i.e. [Tries = 3]) rather than a Name.
There are a couple of options here:
Your guard condition can combine multiple checks within the '[]' - much like you were doing in the note.
You can have multiple transitions between the same two states, each with its own condition.
You can have states within states. So in your example the three states could be within a superstate of 'Normal Operation' - which you then further define in other documentation or via a note.
All of these are valid UML syntax. But note that just because something is valid doesn't mean it will be supported in your editor. For example it was many years before most of the features of sequence diagrams became available within editors...