Under Review

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.

paulhaen
Parents

  • I’m finding it increasingly difficult to justify DA licenses to management when GPPs are already so capable, and the absence of a key feature that GPPs and other management tools provide isn’t helping. I understand there are other important—but less obvious—benefits to DA Continue reading, but those advantages are much harder to Continue reading communicate and sell to leadership.

Comment

  • I’m finding it increasingly difficult to justify DA licenses to management when GPPs are already so capable, and the absence of a key feature that GPPs and other management tools provide isn’t helping. I understand there are other important—but less obvious—benefits to DA Continue reading, but those advantages are much harder to Continue reading communicate and sell to leadership.

Children
No Data