[fix #1512] add not in comparison into Trigger Agent

[andrey-yantsen]

Add not in comparison for doing != on arrays. Also warning about != and arrays was added.
Fixes #1512.

[cantino]

maybe "(in which case, all items in the array must be strings)"?

[cantino]

More complete re-write:

The value can be a single value or an array of values. In the case of an array, all items must be strings, and if one or more values match, then the rule matches. Note: avoid using field!=value with arrays, you should use not in instead.

[cantino]

Thanks @andrey-yantsen, would you mind updating the spec too?

[andrey-yantsen]

Updating spec was a great idea :)
Give me an example for proper rewriting of rule_values.any? and I'll squash commits into one.

[cantino]

Maybe just this?

rule_values.any? do |rule_value|
  if rule['type'] == "regex"
    value_at_path.to_s =~ Regexp.new(rule_value, Regexp::IGNORECASE)
  elsif rule['type'] == "!regex"
    value_at_path.to_s !~ Regexp.new(rule_value, Regexp::IGNORECASE)
  elsif rule['type'] == "field>value"
    value_at_path.to_f > rule_value.to_f
  elsif rule['type'] == "field>=value"
    value_at_path.to_f >= rule_value.to_f
  elsif rule['type'] == "field<value"
    value_at_path.to_f < rule_value.to_f
  elsif rule['type'] == "field<=value"
    value_at_path.to_f <= rule_value.to_f
  elsif rule['type'] == "field==value"
    value_at_path.to_s == rule_value.to_s
  elsif rule['type'] == "field!=value"
    value_at_path.to_s != rule_value.to_s
  elsif rule['type'] == 'in'
    rule_values.include?(value_at_path.to_s)
  elsif rule['type'] == 'not in'
    !rule_values.include?(value_at_path.to_s)
  else
    raise "Invalid type of #{rule['type']} in TriggerAgent##{id}"
  end
end

I added in there too.

[andrey-yantsen]

I can not agree with it :) It's quite strange to compare entire list inside rule_values.any? — according to your suggestion exactly same operation will be performed for each element of the list. Also — .include? operation should actually be performed for any ==.

[cantino]

You're right, I misunderstood.

Want to add in next to your not in option at the top of the if?

[andrey-yantsen]

Actually in is quite strange operation because it is exactly the same thing as field==value. I've added it, but I'm confused a little by this decision :)

[cantino]

Yea, that's a good point. I'm tired this evening. We don't need it :)

[andrey-yantsen]

Ok :)
I've squashed the commits into one, check it once again please.

[cantino]

Thanks @andrey-yantsen, works great!