T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
303.1 | | GOSTE::CALLANDER | | Fri Sep 07 1990 11:56 | 6 |
|
At this point I know that it isn't in the 1.1 plans. As to futures,
anything is possible. Though there are many items on the table already
for consideration.
|
303.2 | We have this on our list for the future | TOOK::ORENSTEIN | | Fri Sep 07 1990 14:09 | 23 |
|
Rich -
The ALARMS team has given thought to complex mathematical expressions.
By this I mean expressions that will allow you to nest expressions, use
math functions, and use logical operators aswell.
We do not have this planned into our schedule right now, but we would
like to provide this in the future. If you have any other ideas on
ways for us to enhance our expressions, please send them along to us.
As for the expression you mentioned in your note:
EXPRESSION = (... FILE DATE_LAST_MODIFIED > ... FILE DATE_LAST_BACKUP)
You mentioned that "these exoressions are accepted without error today...)
Do you mean that you can create rules with expressions like this? I do
realize that the ... is a full entity spec. Could you pleas send me a
copy of a terminal session where you are able to do this, and the
pieces of the MS where these attributes are defined? I am interested
in looking into this.
aud... (ALARMS team member)
|
303.3 | | COOKIE::KITTELL | Richard - Architected Info Mgmt | Fri Sep 07 1990 19:52 | 16 |
|
RE: .2
Here's a SHOW ALL ATTR of the rule:
Category = "container threshold crossed"
Description = "this doesn't look like Kansas"
Exception Handler = DISK$SYSTEM_4:[MCC]MCC_ALARMS_MAIL_EXC
EPTION.COM;1
Expression = (pbd aug16 container mumble framis >=
pbd aug16 container
mumble threshold, at every 0:02)
Parameter = "kittell"
Procedure = DISK$SYSTEM_4:[MCC]MCC_ALARMS_MAIL_ALA
RM.COM;1
Queue = "sys$batch"
|
303.4 | Here'sa guess, but please post your MSL | TOOK::ORENSTEIN | | Mon Sep 10 1990 12:21 | 27 |
|
Hi Rich,
If I were to take a guess, I would say that "... framis" is defined as an
enumerated datatype and that "... threshold" is an enumerated value.
>>> Expression = (pbd aug16 container mumble framis >=
>>> pbd aug16 container mumble threshold, at every 0:02)
If this is not what you have defined, I will still need to see the pieces
of your MSL where you define "pdb aug16 container mumble ..."
ALARMS uses routines from the Forms & Command Line to help parse the
alarm expession. When the attribute "framis" is parsed, these routines
return to us the datatype that you gave it when you wrote your MSL.
Then a PARSE_VALUE routine is called. This routine takes as input the
datatype of the value we are parsing for. If a value with a different
datatype is entered on the command line, you should see a message from
ALARMS that says:
"Alarm expression value does not match its attribute datatype."
I am explaining this to you so you can see how your MSL can affect the
parsing of an expression. Please enter you MSL peices here so that
those following this note can watch.
aud...
|
303.5 | Unsigned32 | COOKIE::KITTELL | Richard - Architected Info Mgmt | Wed Sep 12 1990 12:25 | 7 |
|
They were both MCC_K_DT_UNSIGNED32. I'm sorry but I cobbled up the MSL for
the test and deleted it afterwards. I've given myself a stern talking to
about reporting problems and then deleting the evidence.
I'll have a demo running in the next week or so where I can try it again.
If I can reproduce the scenario I'll post the details.
|
303.6 | Could it have been...? | TOOK::PLOUFFE | Jerry | Thu Sep 20 1990 16:05 | 11 |
| RE: <<< Note 303.5 by COOKIE::KITTELL "Richard - Architected Info Mgmt" >>>
-< Unsigned32 >-
> They were both MCC_K_DT_UNSIGNED32.
Are you positive? We just discovered a problem with parsing COUNTER48 values.
Seems that mostly anything is getting accepted. Could you check and let us
know? Thanks in advance...
- Jerry
|
303.7 | lo and behold, it wasn't either | COOKIE::KITTELL | Richard - Architected Info Mgmt | Thu Sep 20 1990 16:25 | 3 |
|
A fetched the MSL out of the CMS library, and they were both Unsigned64.
|
303.8 | Bingo! | TOOK::PLOUFFE | Jerry | Thu Sep 20 1990 18:36 | 18 |
| RE: <<< Note 303.7 by COOKIE::KITTELL "Richard - Architected Info Mgmt" >>>
-< lo and behold, it wasn't either >-
> A fetched the MSL out of the CMS library, and they were both Unsigned64.
Yes! We have just discovered that the problem also exists with COUNTER64
and UNSIGNED64 data type values!
Thanks for your help on this problem. This one was a tough one to crack!
BTW, don't expect this to be fixed in v1.0. There is a simple workaround
(translated: priority 4) to these problems and the v1.0 SSB kit is just
about ready to be delivered. We'll have to settle for this to be fixed in
the v1.1 timeframe.
- Jerry
|
303.9 | Summary of the problem | TOOK::PLOUFFE | Jerry | Tue Sep 25 1990 11:12 | 30 |
|
We have completed our investigation into this problem and here's the scoop:
There is a problem parsing COUNTER48, COUNTER64, UNSIGNED48 and UNSIGNED64
values.
When using attributes of these datatypes in an alarm expression, one must be
sure to include a proper value terminator after the value. In this case, the
terminator is a `,' (which proceeds the optional AT time clause) or a `)'
which terminates the expression.
Any extraneous characters after the value but before the `,' or `)' will
be ignored. Thus, if there is no comma before the time clause, the time
clause specified will be ignored and the default of EVERY 00:15:00
(15 minutes) will be used. A valid value will be parsed properly.
Invalid values will not be caught by the parser.
This problem also affects WITH clauses that utilize attributes of these
datatypes from the FCL interface. It also affects SET commands for
attributes of type UNSIGNED48/64 (Counters, by definition, are not settable).
As long as valid alarm expressions, WITH clauses and SET commands are
specified, everything works fine. Reporting errors when invalid values
are entered is the problem.
This has been documented in the release notes and a QAR has been
filed in the NACQAR database - #1228.
- Jerry
|