ANALYTICS-6-1-6-v21.06 MODIFY RULES (PARAMETERS WITH OPTIONS) Step23 Value Comparison

[danboberton]

In ANALYTICS-6-1-6-v21.06 MODIFY RULES (PARAMETERS WITH OPTIONS):

• step 20 Modify Rules(RulesEngine) modifies a duration value as such: <SimpleItem Name="Duration" Value="PT15M7S" /> .
• step 21 Get Rules(RulesEngine) retrieves the duration value in seconds only: <tt:SimpleItem Name="Duration" Value="PT907S">
• step 23 Fails:

 <StepResult>
            <Number>23</Number>
            <StepName>Check if GetRules returned Config item with Name = 'Duration' and correct value</StepName>
            <StepStart>2025-08-16T23:32:55.9716862Z</StepStart>
            <StepFinished>2025-08-16T23:32:55.9756926Z</StepFinished>
            <Message>GetRules did not return the required Config item</Message>
            <Status>Failed</Status>
          </StepResult>

It seems the rule parameter is undergoing literal comparison as opposed to value comparison. Altering our return value in terms of minutes and seconds to PT15M7S passes the test. I am not aware of any requirement that Durations be normalized. Please advise.

[SergeyGRSE]

Hi Dan,

you are right, there are no any other requirements for duration except to be consistent with ISO 8601. From that perspective PT15M7S looks correct. Or maybe I did not get right your question: how did you return the value ?

[danboberton]

Returning the value set by the test, converted to seconds, was failing. This seems like a bug in the test. As returning both PT907S and PT15M7S should be valid. Thoughts?

[danboberton]

@SergeyGRSE Any thoughts on this?

[SergeyGRSE]

Hi Dan, sorry for a delay.
Yes both PT15M7S and PT907S are the same.
From DTT perspective there were a problem with duration comparison. I am not sure why we got this problem only now, this code here from 2017. I have created a ticket in DTT (#416) for this. It is already fixed but officially will be included into 25.12 version.
In case this blocks you - you can contact Madhu for an errata.

[madhurao68]

Hi Dan,
Please let us know if this is critical and we will issue an erratum for the issue. Thanks.

[danboberton]

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. We'll look for this fix it future release.

[madhurao68]

Hi Dan,
We will issue the fix in the next release of the test tool. Thanks for your patience.