CQL2/AT1.6: {p2} and {p3} contribute nothing to result

[jerstlouis]

In Conformance Test 6 for Basic CQL2 Abstract Test, the {p2} and {p3} predicates cannot possibly influence the results.
This may not be intended.
The truth table is like so:

            (NOT ({p1}) AND {p2}) OR ({p3} and NOT ({p4})) or not ({p1} AND {p4}))

 {p1} |  {p2} |  {p3} |  {p4} | (NOT ({p1}) AND {p2}) | ({p3} and NOT ({p4})) | not ({p1} AND {p4})) | result
=============================================================================================================
false | false | false | false |        false          |         false         |        true          | true
false | false | false | true  |        false          |         false         |        true          | true
false | false | true  | false |        false          |         true          |        true          | true
false | false | true  | true  |        false          |         false         |        true          | true
false | true  | false | false |        true           |         false         |        true          | true
false | true  | false | true  |        true           |         false         |        true          | true
false | true  | true  | false |        true           |         true          |        true          | true
false | true  | true  | true  |        true           |         false         |        true          | true
true  | false | false | false |        false          |         false         |        true          | true
true  | false | false | true  |        false          |         false         |        false         | false
true  | false | true  | false |        false          |         true          |        true          | true
true  | false | true  | true  |        false          |         false         |        false         | false
true  | true  | false | false |        false          |         false         |        true          | true
true  | true  | false | true  |        false          |         false         |        false         | false
true  | true  | true  | false |        false          |         true          |        true          | true
true  | true  | true  | true  |        false          |         false         |        false         | false

which shows that the final result is identical to the last part of the logical expression: not ({p1} AND {p4})

Perhaps having the AND outside and the OR inside instead would make the test more useful.

It would also be highly valuable to include actual features matched count for specific results of the datasets to make testing logical operators easier to implement.

[cportele]

Thanks, @jerstlouis. All suggestions make sense to me. I will assign this to me.

[jerstlouis]

Thanks @cportele . I quickly put together this truth table for my suggestion to switch AND / OR , and unfortunately it seems that it is not any better :(
Logic has interesting properties ;)
We would need different combinations.

            (NOT ({p1}) OR {p2}) AND ({p3} or NOT ({p4})) and not ({p1} OR {p4}))

 {p1} |  {p2} |  {p3} |  {p4} | (NOT ({p1}) OR {p2}) | ({p3} or NOT ({p4})) | not ({p1} OR {p4})) | result
=============================================================================================================
false | false | false | false |        true          |         true         |        true         | true
false | false | false | true  |        true          |         false        |        false        | false
false | false | true  | false |        true          |         true         |        true         | true
false | false | true  | true  |        true          |         true         |        false        | false
false | true  | false | false |        true          |         true         |        true         | true
false | true  | false | true  |        true          |         false        |        false        | false
false | true  | true  | false |        true          |         true         |        true         | true
false | true  | true  | true  |        true          |         true         |        false        | false
true  | false | false | false |        false         |         true         |        false        | false
true  | false | false | true  |        false         |         false        |        false        | false
true  | false | true  | false |        false         |         true         |        false        | false
true  | false | true  | true  |        false         |         true         |        false        | false
true  | true  | false | false |        true          |         true         |        false        | false
true  | true  | false | true  |        true          |         false        |        false        | false
true  | true  | true  | false |        true          |         true         |        false        | false
true  | true  | true  | true  |        true          |         true         |        false        | false

[cportele]

Thanks for your efforts, I will have a look and see if I can come up with something that works better...

[jerstlouis]

A Karnaugh map might be relevant / helpful ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO5alU6PpSU

Actually sounds really fun to try to come up with something for this. Must resist.