generator: lasting is per rule only and mandatory like threshold #274
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
xp-1000
added
bug
egouraud-claranet
approved these changes
Apr 14, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
the lasting variable is "mandatory" (created as soon it has been configured) and its scope is
ruleonly exactly like thresholdsthe disabled is little special because it is also available at
detectorandglobalscope. But this is useless to provide a per rule variable if there is only one rule given that disabling the entire detector will does the same than disabling its only rule.When we integrated this feature from #248 I did not this error because we did not have any detector with only one rule using lasting.
so it works until now but the proper way to implement this is define lasting in the same block we define thresholds (and not the disabled per rule one).
I add @jmapro as reviewer to let him now this change on this feature.
@egouraud-claranet you should be able to fix the ci on #271 after rebasing on this PR.