fix: improve typing of RuleResult

[emilefokkemanavara]

This PR closes #352 by improving the typing of RuleResult.

[chris-pardy]

@emilefokkemanavara thanks for putting this up. I'll take a look later today or over the weekend.
One thing to note right away is that the condition reference can end up in the result if the conditions it's referencing isn't defined and if the "allowUndefinedConditions" option is specified.

[emilefokkemanavara]

@chris-pardy Thanks for the heads up!

[chris-pardy]

@emilefokkemanavara This looks great, expect for one issue.

The a evaluation of JSON Rules Engine follows these steps:

1. Clone all the conditions
2. Attach the cloned conditions to the rule result
3. Evaluate each cloned condition
4. Modify the cloned condition to have new properties such as result

This means that if a condition doesn't get evaluated it will still be in the rule result but it won't have properties like result or factResult. The main reason conditions can be skipped is in Any/All conditions. These group by priority and short-circuit between priorities so for instance:

This set of conditions

{
  "all": [
     { "fact": "age", "operator": "greaterThanInclusive", "value": 21, "priority": 1 },
     { "fact": "likesOranges", "operator": "equal", "value": true, "priority": 2 }
  ]
}

The result can look like this.

{
  "all": [
     {"fact": "age", "operator": "greaterThanInclusive", "value": 21, "priority": 1, "factResult": 20 },
     { "fact": "likesOranges", "operator": "equal", "value": true, "priority": 2 }
  ]
}

[emilefokkemanavara]

@emilefokkemanavara This looks great, expect for one issue.

The a evaluation of JSON Rules Engine follows these steps:

1. Clone all the conditions
2. Attach the cloned conditions to the rule result
3. Evaluate each cloned condition
4. Modify the cloned condition to have new properties such as result

This means that if a condition doesn't get evaluated it will still be in the rule result but it won't have properties like result or factResult. The main reason conditions can be skipped is in Any/All conditions. These group by priority and short-circuit between priorities so for instance:

This set of conditions

{
  "all": [
     { "fact": "age", "operator": "greaterThanInclusive", "value": 21, "priority": 1 },
     { "fact": "likesOranges", "operator": "equal", "value": true, "priority": 2 }
  ]
}

The result can look like this.

{
  "all": [
     {"fact": "age", "operator": "greaterThanInclusive", "value": 21, "priority": 1, "factResult": 20 },
     { "fact": "likesOranges", "operator": "equal", "value": true, "priority": 2 }
  ]
}

@chris-pardy So this means result and factResult are possibly undefined? (see latest commit)

[chris-pardy]

Looks good.
Before running the tests could you rebase this and squash the commits to make it a bit easier to read down the line.

[chris-pardy]

@emilefokkemanavara This looks great, expect for one issue.

The a evaluation of JSON Rules Engine follows these steps:

1. Clone all the conditions
2. Attach the cloned conditions to the rule result
3. Evaluate each cloned condition
4. Modify the cloned condition to have new properties such as result

This means that if a condition doesn't get evaluated it will still be in the rule result but it won't have properties like result or factResult. The main reason conditions can be skipped is in Any/All conditions. These group by priority and short-circuit between priorities so for instance:

This set of conditions

{
  "all": [
     { "fact": "age", "operator": "greaterThanInclusive", "value": 21, "priority": 1 },
     { "fact": "likesOranges", "operator": "equal", "value": true, "priority": 2 }
  ]
}

The result can look like this.

{
  "all": [
     {"fact": "age", "operator": "greaterThanInclusive", "value": 21, "priority": 1, "factResult": 20 },
     { "fact": "likesOranges", "operator": "equal", "value": true, "priority": 2 }
  ]
}

@chris-pardy So this means result and factResult are possibly undefined? (see latest commit)

Yes, that's correct.