Fix operator checks to follow other check_type logic. (#85)

* Fix operator checks to follow other check_type logic.

* Add new release 0.0.2

Co-authored-by: Patryk Szulczewski <[email protected]>

Author: pszulczewski

CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,14 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## v0.0.2
+
+- Update operator logic for returned result
+- Update docs 
+
+## v0.0.1
+
+- Initial release
+
 ## v0.0.1-beta.1
 
-Initial release
+- First beta release

docs/usage.md

@@ -416,7 +416,7 @@ Let's run an example where we want to check the `burnedInAddress` key has a stri
 ```
 We define the regex for matching a MAC address string. Then we define the path query to extract the data and create the check.
 ```python
->>> mac_regex = "(?:[0-9a-fA-F]:?){12}"
+>>> mac_regex = "^([0-9a-fA-F]{2}:){5}([0-9a-fA-F]{2})$"
 >>> path = "result[*].interfaces.*.[$name$,burnedInAddress]"
 >>> check = CheckType.create(check_type="regex")
 >>> actual_value = extract_data_from_json(actual_data, path)
@@ -556,7 +556,7 @@ We are looking for peers that have the same peerGroup, vrf, and state. Return pe
   {'10.1.0.0': {'peerGroup': 'IPv4-UNDERLAY-SPINE',
     'vrf': 'default',
     'state': 'Idle'}}],
- True)
+ False)
 ```
 
 Let's now look to an example for the `in` operator. Keeping the same `data` and class object as above:
@@ -573,7 +573,7 @@ We are looking for "prefixesReceived" value in the operator_data list.
 ```python
 >>> result = check.evaluate(check_args, value)
 >>> result
-([{'10.1.0.0': {'prefixesReceived': 50}}], False)
+([{'7.7.7.7': {'prefixesReceived': 101}}], False)
 ```
 
 What about `str` operator?
@@ -587,7 +587,7 @@ What about `str` operator?
  {'10.1.0.0': {'peerGroup': 'IPv4-UNDERLAY-SPINE'}}]
 >>> result = check.evaluate(check_args, value)
 >>> result
-([{'7.7.7.7': {'peerGroup': 'EVPN-OVERLAY-SPINE'}}], False)
+([{'10.1.0.0': {'peerGroup': 'IPv4-UNDERLAY-SPINE'}}], False)
 ```
 
 Can you guess what would be the outcome for an `int`, `float` operator?
@@ -601,9 +601,7 @@ Can you guess what would be the outcome for an `int`, `float` operator?
  {'10.1.0.0': {'prefixesReceived': 50}}]
 >>> result = check.evaluate(check_args, value)
 >>> result
-([{'7.7.7.7': {'prefixesReceived': 101}},
-  {'10.1.0.0': {'prefixesReceived': 50}}],
- False)
+([], True)
 ```
 
 See `tests` folder in the repo for more examples.

jdiff/check_types.py

@@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ def _validate(params) -> None:  # type: ignore[override]
         params_key = params.get("params", {}).get("mode")
         params_value = params.get("params", {}).get("operator_data")
 
-        if not params_key or not params_value:
+        if not params_key or params_value is None:
             raise ValueError(
                 f"'mode' and 'operator_data' arguments must be provided. You have: {list(params['params'].keys())}."
             )
@@ -258,4 +258,4 @@ def result(self, evaluation_result):
 
         This is required as Opertor return its own boolean within result.
         """
-        return evaluation_result[0], not evaluation_result[1]
+        return evaluation_result[0], evaluation_result[1]

jdiff/operator.py

@@ -31,22 +31,22 @@ def call_evaluation_logic():
             """Operator valuation logic wrapper."""
             # reverse operands: https://docs.python.org/3.8/library/operator.html#operator.contains
             if call_ops == "is_in":
-                if ops[call_ops](self.reference_data, evaluated_value):
+                if not ops[call_ops](self.reference_data, evaluated_value):
                     result.append(item)
             elif call_ops == "not_contains":
-                if not ops[call_ops](evaluated_value, self.reference_data):
+                if ops[call_ops](evaluated_value, self.reference_data):
                     result.append(item)
             elif call_ops == "not_in":
-                if not ops[call_ops](self.reference_data, evaluated_value):
+                if ops[call_ops](self.reference_data, evaluated_value):
                     result.append(item)
             elif call_ops == "in_range":
-                if self.reference_data[0] < evaluated_value < self.reference_data[1]:
+                if not self.reference_data[0] < evaluated_value < self.reference_data[1]:
                     result.append(item)
             elif call_ops == "not_in_range":
-                if not self.reference_data[0] < evaluated_value < self.reference_data[1]:
+                if self.reference_data[0] < evaluated_value < self.reference_data[1]:
                     result.append(item)
             # "<", ">", "contains"
-            elif ops[call_ops](evaluated_value, self.reference_data):
+            elif not ops[call_ops](evaluated_value, self.reference_data):
                 result.append(item)
 
         ops = {
@@ -64,14 +64,13 @@ def call_evaluation_logic():
                 for evaluated_value in value.values():
                     call_evaluation_logic()
         if result:
-            return (result, True)
-        return (result, False)
+            return (result, False)
+        return (result, True)
 
-    def all_same(self) -> Tuple[bool, Any]:
+    def all_same(self) -> Tuple[Any, bool]:
         """All same operator type implementation."""
         list_of_values = []
         result = []
-
         for item in self.value_to_compare:
             # Create a list for compare values.
             list_of_values.extend(iter(item.values()))
@@ -80,13 +79,12 @@ def all_same(self) -> Tuple[bool, Any]:
                 result.append(False)
             else:
                 result.append(True)
-
         if self.reference_data and not all(result):
             return (self.value_to_compare, False)
         if self.reference_data:
-            return (self.value_to_compare, True)
+            return ([], True)
         if not all(result):
-            return (self.value_to_compare, True)
+            return ([], True)
         return (self.value_to_compare, False)
 
     def contains(self) -> Tuple[List, bool]: