Using multiple relevances for a fixlet?

(imported topic written by shajducko91)

I’m not sure I see how to use multiple relevance items for a fixlet.

If I pick ‘Computers which match the condition below’ and try to enter multiple relevance expressions, they get rewritten and are really rather confusing.

For instance, the expression:

exists (computer name) whose (it as string as lowercase contains “” as lowercase)

gets rewritten as

(false or exists true whose (if true then (exists (computer name) whose (it as string as lowercase contains “” as lowercase)) else false))

The only other option is to pick ‘Computers on which the relevance clause below is true’ and that only lets me put in one relevance clause.

Am I doing something wrong here?

(imported comment written by Ashwin.D91)

Hi,

I’m not sure this is the exact solution that you are looking for, but this can be workaround.In ‘Computers on which below relevance clause is true’, write down the different queries that you need and then put in an ADD or OR in between them as required.

(imported comment written by shajducko91)

Thanks Ashwin - I’ve used that but I’d still like to know why the console screws up the other relevance items when using the ‘Computers which match the condition below’ items.

(imported comment written by SystemAdmin)

You could also enter each relevance clause joined with an “and” or an “or”. Like: ( relevance1 ) and ( relevance2 ) and ( relevance3 )

For example:

( name of operating system as lowercase starts with “win” )

and

( exists file “user32.dll” whose ( version of it >= “6” ) of system folder )

and

( computer name contains “mo” )

(imported comment written by shajducko91)

Yeah I was successfully able to do that - I wanted to try and emulate the builtin fixlets we usually get though and how each one has several different relevant clauses displayed in the fixlet.

Is there a reason why the first options rewrites the rule so drastically?

(imported comment written by pmullins91)

I believe I have been down the same road before - it’s not good news, sorry:

http://forum.bigfix.com/viewtopic.php?id=2605

(imported comment written by SystemAdmin)

shajducko

Is there a reason why the first options rewrites the rule so drastically?

Yes. The extra relevance allows you to use unknown inspectors without causing a runtime error. This is potentially useful if you’re targeting machines running different client versions or different operating systems, and you’re not sure if all of the inspectors you want to use are available on all of the target machines.

Here’s a shorter example of the error protection in action:

Q: zoidberg
E: The operator “zoidberg” is not defined.

Q: exists true whose ( if true then zoidberg else false )
A: False

pmullins

I believe I have been down the same road before - it’s not good news, sorry: http://forum.bigfix.com/viewtopic.php?id=2605

There’s some good news. The next major release of the console explicitly supports fixlets with multiple relevance clauses. The bad news is that it won’t be released for a while.

(imported comment written by pmullins91)

Thanks for the info Brian.