TemplateRule parameters with OR

[MatthiasWeise]

We have troubles checking statements like the following:
<TemplateRule Parameters="Set[Value]='Pset_SpaceCommon' AND Property[Value]='Category' AND (Value[Value]='Betriebstechnische Anlagen' OR Value[Value]='Sonstige Nutzungen' OR Value[Value]='Verkehrserschl. und -sicherung' OR Value[Value]='Wohnen und Aufenthalt')"/>

This is working for instance:
<TemplateRule Parameters="Set[Value]='Pset_SpaceCommon' AND PropertyName[Value]='Category' AND Value[Value]='Betriebstechnische Anlagen'"/>

It seems that configuring same RuleIDs in the TemplateRule parameters is the reason.

[CBenghi]

@MatthiasWeise I'll look into this.

[CBenghi]

@MatthiasWeise would you be able to provide an mvdxml + ifc for this to be made into a test case?

[CBenghi]

@MatthiasWeise Looking into this still. I've got a question for you.
the documentation states the following rule in the grammar

boolean_term
: (( parameter ( metric )? | metric ) operator ( value | parameter ( metric )? ) ) |
( LPAREN boolean_expression RPAREN );

it seems to me that a statement such as [Size] would match parameter ( metric )? | metric.

If this is correct a whole boolean_term could look like [Size]=2; but would it make sense? What entity is that metric referring to?

[CBenghi]

Should both sides be value | parameter ( metric )?

[MatthiasWeise]

The grammar introduced by mvdXML 1.1 is used by mvd:TemplateRule.Parameters, but also mvd:Constraint.Expression.
The grammar for Expression used by mvdXML 1.0 was: {Metric}{Operator}{Benchmark} (Expression is attached to a Rule that defines a RuleID = parameter, which is implicitly used in the expression; [Size]=2 would make sense in an expression, but I would recommend to add the parameter to any logical expression).
The option was mainly added to be "backward compatible" with mvdXML 1.0.