Under Review
over 2 years ago

Expand the use of boolean operators in validation logic rules

I recently ran into a problem while trying to create a validation logic rule that had to launch an application if a file version was lower then x OR the file didn't exist.

Desktop Authority changes the OR into an AND. This is apparently bij design cause this is what I received from support:

If the AND/OR is forcing you to use one or the other then that is the only acceptable combination. Sometimes the Boolean Operators that were used prevents specific configurations. Some examples of rules that can’t be used are:

-IF, OR, AND

-IF, AND, OR

-IF, OR NOT

 

There is no logic in this for me so my request is to expand the possibilities on this point.

Thank you.

  • I upvoted this request, and would like to add some reasoning.  With GPPs so powerful now, there is just about nothing that DA elements can do that GPPs cannot.  DA's BIG advantage is Application Launch elements.  GPPs don't have that, other than managing multiple scripts, which only run at login/startup.  But GPPs have fully flexible logic, where you can next AND/OR as required, e.g. (A and B) OR (A and C and D)

    I'm having a hard time justifying DA licenses to management with GPPs being so powerful, and not having a feature that GPPs and other management products have is not helping.  (*I* know there are other important but more subtle advantages, but they're more difficult to sell.)

    Anyway, just that.  The feature is needed, and the competition has it.  Hope that makes a case for it.