I want to move one rule to false positive using filterset or any other way. I don't want to move whole rule like following case. "Password Management: Hardcoded Password" one rule is there I want to move thread "private String Password;" line to false positive not an "Password="sample123""; This is real thread. I tried to AWB create filter but there is no one match like this type of logic. How to filter rule only particular criteria?
When you mark some kind of issue as false positive, the AI engine can observe new ocurrences.
Related
I am working on a satisfiability check for transition conditions of GRAFCET Diagrams (which is used to model the behaviour of a programmable logic controller). For this purpose I am using the Z3 SMT Solver.
In addition to normal operators (AND, OR, NOT and EQUALITY) the GRAFCET specification allows RISING and FALLING EDGE operators in its conditions.
Exemple: ↑a (RISING EDGE)
Explanation: The conditions is statisfied if the variable a changes its value from FALSE to TRUE.
My first thought would be to check, if there is a variable combination that statisfies a and also a variable combination that statisfies NOT(a). This way I could proof that the RISING EDGE could possibly occure.
[Q]: Is it possible to translate these operators directly in propositional logic or somthing similar to check satisfiablity in one forumula.
Raising/falling edges suggests change over time. In a SAT/SMT context, variables do not change. To model what you want, you’ll have to capture the value in successive points in different variables and check that the first is False and second is True for raising, etc.
You can also use an array indexed by an integer to represent the value. It all depends on how you translate these diagrams to SAT. In any case, the value of each variable will be constant in the model. (That is, checking a and Not(a) at the same time will always be unsatisfiable.)
I am starting to work with DLV (Disjunctive Datalog) and I have a rule that is reporting a "Rule is not safe" error, when running the code. The rule is the following:
foo(R, 1) :- not foo(R, _)
I have read the manual and seen that "cyclic dependencies are disallowed". I guess this is why I am being reported the error, but I am not sure how this statement is so problematic to DLV. The final goal is to have some kind of initialization in case that the predicate has not been defined.
More precisely, if there is no occurrence of 'foo' with the parameter R (and anything else), then define it with parameters R and 1. Once it is defined, the rule shouldn't be triggered again. So, this is not a real recursion in my opinion.
Any comments on how to solve this issue are welcomed!
I have realised that I probably need another predicate to match the parameter R in the body of the rule. Something like this:
foo(R, 1) :- not foo(R, _), bar(R)
Since, otherwise there would be no way to know whether there are no occurrences of foo(R, _). I don't know whether I made myself clear.
Anyway, this doesn't work either :(
To the particular "Rule is not safe" error: First of all this has nothing to do with cyclic or acyclic dependencies. The same error message shows up for the non-cyclic program:
foo2(R, 1) :- not foo(R,_), bar(R).
The problem is that the program is actually not safe (http://www.dlvsystem.com/html/DLV_User_Manual.html#SAFETY). As mentioned in the section on negative rules (anchor #AEN375, I am only allowed to use 2 links in my answer):
Variables, which occur in a negated literal, must also occur in a
positive literal in the body.
Observe that the _ is an anonymous variable. I.e., the program
foo(R,1) :- not foo(R,_), bar(R).
can be equivalently written as (and is equivalent to)
foo(R,1) :- not foo(R,X), bar(R).
Anonymous variables (DLV manual, anchor #AEN264 - at the end of the section) just allow us to avoid inventing names for variables that will only occur once within the rule (i.e. for variables that only express "there is some value, I absolutely do not care about it), but they are variables nevertheless. And since negation with not is "negation" and not "true negation" (or "strong negation" as it is also often called), none of the three safety conditions is satisfied by the rule.
A very rough and high-level intuition for safety is that it guarantees that every variable in the program can be assigned to some finite domain - as it is now the case with R by adding bar(R). However, the same also must be the case for the anonymous variable _ .
To the actual problem of defining default values:
As pointed out by lambda.xy.x, the problem here is the Answer Set (or stable model) semantics of DLV: Trying to do it in one rule does not give any solution:
In order to get a safe program, we could replace the above problems e.g. by
foo(1,2). bar(1). bar(2).
tmp(R) :- foo(R,_).
foo(R,1) :- not tmp(R), bar(R).
This has no stable model:
Assume the answer is, as intended,
{foo(1,2), bar(1), bar(2), foo(2,1)}
However, this is not a valid model, since tmp(R) :- foo(R,_) would require it to contain tmp(2). But then, "not tmp(2)" is no longer true, and therefore having foo(2,1) in the model violates the required minimality of the model. (This is not exactly what is going on, more a rough intuition. More technical details could be found in any article on answer set programming, a quick Google search gave me this paper as one of the first results: http://www.kr.tuwien.ac.at/staff/tkren/pub/2009/rw2009-asp.pdf)
In order to solve the problem, it is therefore somehow necessary to "break the cycle". One possibility would be:
foo(1,2). bar(1). bar(2). bar(3).
tmp(R) :- foo(R,X), X!=1.
foo(R,1) :- bar(R), not tmp(R).
I.e., by explicitly stating that we want to add R into the intermediate atom only if the value is different from 1, having foo(2,1) in the model does not contradict tmp(2) not being part of the model as well. Of course, this no longer allows to distinguish whether foo(R,1) is there as default value or by input, but if this is not required ...
Another possibility would be to not use foo for the computation, but some foo1 instead. I.e. having
foo1(R,X) :- foo(R,X).
tmp(R) :- foo(R,_).
foo1(R,1) :- bar(R), not tmp(R).
and then just use foo1 instead of foo.
I have been trying out ilog jrules for sometime now.I especially interested in rule overriding feature, though there is pure IRL way to create heirachies and override the rules programatically. I want to use rule studio for rule overriding rather than writing it in IRL.
In rule property window of rule studio,there is an option to specify a rule which is to be overriden, but I do not find any places to give the conditions which is used to make the overriding decision for the rules.
Can anyone throw some light on this ? Where do I add the conditions which are used to override the rules ? Or do I have to do it in the IRL programmatic way itself ?
A rule can override one or more other rules if these rules are selected in the same rule task at run time.
Let's say you have the two rules A & B. A is a rule granting you a general discount if you have reached gold status in the loyalty program:
Rule A:
if
the status of 'the customer' is gold
then
add a 4% discount, reason: "Gold membership"
Rule B should override this rule for the German market with a discount of 5%:
Rule B:
if
the status of 'the customer' is gold
and the home country of 'the customer' is Germany
then
add a 5% discount, reason: "German loyalty program: gold status"
The property of Rule B has to specify that Rule A should be overridden (In the properties: overridden rules: [Rule A]). In case both rules can be executed, only Rule B is selected because of the "overridden rules" property. Rule A will be overridden, which means that both rules are selected in the same rule task at run time.
For more information take a look at the documentation
One of the biggest problems with designing a lexical analyzer/parser combination is overzealousness in designing the analyzer. (f)lex isn't designed to have parser logic, which can sometimes interfere with the design of mini-parsers (by means of yy_push_state(), yy_pop_state(), and yy_top_state().
My goal is to parse a document of the form:
CODE1 this is the text that might appear for a 'CODE' entry
SUBCODE1 the CODE group will have several subcodes, which
may extend onto subsequent lines.
SUBCODE2 however, not all SUBCODEs span multiple lines
SUBCODE3 still, however, there are some SUBCODES that span
not only one or two lines, but any number of lines.
this makes it a challenge to use something like \r\n
as a record delimiter.
CODE2 Moreover, it's not guaranteed that a SUBCODE is the
only way to exit another SUBCODE's scope. There may
be CODE blocks that accomplish this.
In the end, I've decided that this section of the project is better left to the lexical analyzer, since I don't want to create a pattern that matches each line (and identifies continuation records). Part of the reason is that I want the lexical parser to have knowledge of the contents of each line, without incorporating its own tokenizing logic. That is to say, if I match ^SUBCODE[ ][ ].{71}\r\n (all records are blocked in 80-character records) I would not be able to harness the power of flex to tokenize the structured data residing in .{71}.
Given these constraints, I'm thinking about doing the following:
Entering a CODE1 state from the <INITIAL> start condition results
in calls to:
yy_push_state(CODE_STATE)
yy_push_state(CODE_CODE1_STATE)
(do something with the contents of the CODE1 state identifier, if such contents exist)
yy_push_state(SUBCODE_STATE) (to tell the analyzer to expect SUBCODE states belonging to the CODE_CODE1_STATE. This is where the analyzer begins to masquerade as a parser.
The <SUBCODE1_STATE> start condition is nested as follows: <CODE_STATE>{ <CODE_CODE1_STATE> { <SUBCODE_STATE>{ <SUBCODE1_STATE> { (perform actions based on the matching patterns) } } }. It also sets the global previous_state variable to yy_top_state(), to wit SUBCODE1_STATE.
Within <SUBCODE1_STATE>'s scope, \r\n will call yy_pop_state(). If a continuation record is present (which is a pattern at the highest scope against which all text is matched), yy_push_state(continuation_record_states[previous_state]) is called, bringing us back to the scope in 2. continuation_record_states[] maps each state with its continuation record state, which is used by the parser.
As you can see, this is quite complicated, which leads me to conclude that I'm massively over-complicating the task.
Questions
For states lacking an extremely clear token signifying the end of its scope, is my proposed solution acceptable?
Given that I want to tokenize the input using flex, is there any way to do so without start conditions?
The biggest problem I'm having is that each record (beginning with the (SUB)CODE prefix) is unique, but the information appearing after the (SUB)CODE prefix is not. Therefore, it almost appears mandatory to have multiple states like this, and the abstract CODE_STATE and SUBCODE_STATE states would act as groupings for each of the concrete SUBCODE[0-9]+_STATE and CODE[0-9]+_STATE states.
I would look at how the OMeta parser handles these things.
I need it for incremental solving in the context of symbolic execution (Klee).
In points of branching of symbolic execution paths it is necessary to split solver context into 2 parts: with true and false conditions. Of course, there is an expensive workaround - create empty context and replay all constraints.
Is there a way to split Z3_context? Do you plan to add such functionality?
Note
splitting of context can be avoided if use depth-first symbolic exploration, that is exploring current execution path until it reaches "end" and hence this path won't be explored anymore in future. In this case it is enough to pop until branch point reached and continue to explore another condition branch. But in case of Klee many symbolic paths are explored "simultaneously" (exploration of true and false branches is interleaved), so you need solver context solver switching (there is Z3_context argument in each method) and branching (there are no methods for this, that is what I need).
Thanks!
No, the current version of Z3 (3.2) does not support this feature. We realize this is an important capability, and an equivalent feature will be available in the next release.
The idea is to separate the concepts of Context and Solver. In the next release, we will have APIs for creating (and copying) solvers. So, you will be able to use a different solver for each branch of the search. In a nutshell, the Context is used to manage/create Z3 expressions, and the Solver for checking satisfiability.
The approach I currently use for this sort of thing is to assert formulas like p => A instead of A, where p is a fresh Boolean literal. Then in my client I maintain the association between the list of guard literals that correspond to each branch, and use check_assumptions(). In my situation I happen to be able to get away with leaving all formulas allocated during each search, but YMMV. Even for depth-first explorations, I seem to get much more incremental reuse this way than by using push/pop.