Skip to Main Content

Intelligent Advisor

Announcement

For appeals, questions and feedback, please email oracle-forums_moderators_us@oracle.com

Help needed with incomplete containment

Jonas Ringer SVBFeb 23 2024

Hi all,

We are working on a project where we collect information about incomes and extra payments (i.e. bonuses). Based on the income attributes we infer instances of the payment period (these can be monthly, 4-weekly, 2-weekly or 1-weekly periods) and we collect the income amounts per period. We also collect the extra payment amounts (usually these are amounts per year). The collected payment period amounts and extra payment amounts need to be recalculated into amounts per month and presented as such on the result screen. Because of this, we infer instances of month, income per month and extra payment per month, based on the instances of income and extra payment. Our solution is based on this example in the OIA manual: https://documentation.custhelp.com/euf/assets/devdocs/cloud23a/IntelligentAdvisor/en/Content/Guides/Policy_Modeling_User_Guide/Work_with_rules/Write_rules_using_ent_and_rel/Example_Create_mirror_entity_instances.htm?Highlight=infer%20instance

Our situation differs from the example in the manual. The orders from the example always have at least one order line item each. But an income doesn’t always have an extra payment. In fact, we only want to collect extra payment information if the user has answered that the income has an extra payment. If that’s not the case, we want to hide the entity collect for the extra payments. But when we do (with a visibility rule for instance), this results in the containment relation the extra payments being incomplete. That in turn results in the inferred relation the extra payments per months being incomplete. And because of this, we can’t calculate the total amount of extra payments for the income per month.

We’re able to bypass this problem by showing the entity collect for the extra payments even if the user has answered that the income has no extra payment and hiding all fields for the extra payment, only showing a label saying “There’s no extra payment, don’t enter one, skip to the next screen.” It works, but it’s not ideal.

We have included a simplified version of our project and a test case for reference. In this test case the attribute ‘the amount of the income per month including extra payments’ is calculated for the income without extra payments (IPM). But for the income with extra payments (Zoogle) the attribute value is unknown, because the incomplete containment relationship to the extra payments of IPN is relevant to the rule. We are hoping we could modify the rules in such a way that incomplete containment for the income with no extra payments is not relevant to the rule for calculating the monthly amount for the income with one or more extra payments. But so far, we’re not sure how.

Any help is much appreciated!

Incomplete containment OIA Project (change the extension to .zip)

incomplete containment testcase (change the extension to .xds)

This post has been answered by Richard Napier on Feb 23 2024
Jump to Answer
Comments
Post Details
Added on Feb 23 2024
6 comments
127 views