When building and executing RPL policy, there are three situations when debugging and analysis is required:

Within this section is an overview of each situation. Then, in the remainder of the document, are the tools that can be used for debugging including the RPL Debugger, Diagnostics, Run Analysis, and RPL Analysis.

There are several errors (non-evaluation errors) which may be encountered when building or validating RPL sets. These messages do not immediately affect a model run, but will likely result in a run failure if not addressed. Messages may appear in the Diagnostics Output Window or in an error notification window which appears at the time of the error.

When an unspecified expression is filled in by entering text into its text field, the entry is parsed to ensure that it meets the requirements of the desired type. If the entry is not valid, a diagnostic message is generated. For example, entering @“t” into an unspecified <numeric expr> would generate the following message shown in Figure 4.1 and revert the expression to its prior, unspecified, state.

Another kind of parsing error can occur when the correct expression data type is improperly entered. For example, typing @“Octobre” into an unspecified <datetime expr> would generate the message shown in Figure 4.2 and revert the expression to its prior, unspecified, state.

In both of these cases, the entered expression was incorrect. Examination of the expression and the diagnostics message should point out the flaw.

RPL sets are validated at several stages prior to a run. Validation ensures that a RPL set meets a minimum level of accuracy for its intended use. There are different levels of validity required for different stages of RPL set opening, editing, and running. The validity levels are as follows.

Given those definitions for the various results of validating a RPL set, the following actions can lead to validation errors.

When a RPL set is opened, its functions and blocks are parsed from the file and the set is validated to the printable level. The printable validation ensures that the RPL set can be displayed in the RPL set editor’s graphical user interface. RPL sets are also validated to the same level when they are saved to ensure that they can be reloaded at a later time. Some older RPL sets which contain critical errors, and corrupted RPL set files may fail to load. In these cases, the window shown in Figure 4.3 appears, indicating the location within the file where the error was detected.

A message will also appear in the Diagnostics Output Window indicating that the “RPL set loading failed” and provide the path and name of the RPL set. The Diagnostics Output Window will display the line number in which the parsing error occurred. If this should occur, first verify that the file you are attempting to load is indeed a RPL set, then contact RiverWare technical support.

When a RPL set is loaded by selecting the RPL Set Not Loaded button in the RPL set editor or Check Validity is selected from the RPL set menu, the RPL set is validated to the evaluatable level. This means that all of the rule and function expressions are syntactically correct, have consistent expression data types, are fully specified, and reference objects and slots which exist on the workspace. If any of these criteria are not met, the RPL set is not validated and it cannot be loaded into the model. In this case, a window appears indicating one of the two messages shown in Figure 4.4.

Another message appears in the Diagnostics Output Window describing the validation errors. Loaded RPL sets are also validated to the evaluatable level when a run is begun. This is to validate any changes which were made to the RPL set since it was successfully loaded. If any errors are detected, the run is stopped, and the appropriate diagnostic messages are displayed.

Several types of errors can be generated when evaluating RPL expressions. Some errors stop the run execution immediately, while others cause the current block to end with an early termination, but do not stop the run. The approach to debugging these errors varies depending on the error type. The error types are:

These are errors which occur within the evaluation of a rule. Most often, these errors are produced when an engineering predefined function fails because it is attempting to model something physically impossible. These errors are often the result of the object state; i.e., the values in the object’s slots. It is entirely possible for an engineering predefined function to fail during one rule evaluation, then succeed during another. The result of the engineering predefined function is almost always related to the state of the object at the time that the function evaluates.

For example, attempting to solve for the ending elevation of a reservoir given a starting elevation and flows which would cause overtopping of the reservoir would generate this kind of error. Some predefined functions can also fail in this way if they are attempting to access missing data or attempting to access data with incorrect arguments. Attempting to lookup values which do not exist in a tableslot would also generate a non-fatal evaluation error.

When the Rule Processor encounters a non-fatal rule evaluation error, it cannot continue evaluating the rule and must terminate early. Since the rule does not complete, no slots are set in the model. All existing slot values and priorities are still correct, and it is not necessary to stop the run.

When a non-fatal evaluation error is encountered, the error message is posted to the Diagnostics Output Window and immediately aborts the RPL statement. The block’s dependencies are preserved, such that the block may be re-evaluated if any of its dependent slots change.

Non-fatal RPL evaluation errors do not always indicate a problem with a RPL set. Although a red error message is displayed in the Diagnostics Output Window, the failure of the RPL expression may be a desired action. This may initially confuse users who are accustomed to seeing error messages only when the run has been aborted. Error messages which are generated for non-fatal rule evaluation errors are intended to give the modeler an indication of the failed functions even though the evaluation continues. These error messages should be investigated to determine whether the function failure really was desired.

When examining non-fatal error messages, keep in mind that the failing function does not know whether its failure is critical or not. In a simulation dispatching context, a failed Elevation Volume Table interpolation is critical because it means the physical limit of the reservoir has been exceeded. In a rule evaluation context, a failed Elevation Volume Table interpolation is not very critical because it only means that a what-if calculation has exceeded the physical limit. In both cases, the table interpolation error is posted as soon as it is encountered. In the simulation dispatch case, the controller should immediately stop the run. In the rule evaluation case, the Rule Processor only needs to abort this rule and can then fire the next rule on the agenda.

Fatal RPL evaluation errors immediately abort execution. Unlike non-fatal RPL evaluation errors, these errors indicate a major problem with the RPL logic. These errors also occur within the evaluation of a RPL logic. Unlike non-fatal RPL evaluation errors, however, these errors are not dependent on the state of the system; they cannot be fixed by having different values in slots. These errors may be caused by missing arguments, arguments of the wrong data type, inconsistent unit types, invalid slot configurations, and/or missing objects and slots. These errors require intervention by the user if the run is ever to succeed. When the Rule Processor encounters a fatal rule evaluation error, the rule is aborted, the error message is posted to the Diagnostics Output Window, and the run is immediately stopped.

The number of arguments and data types of arguments to predefined functions are fixed. Each function checks the validity of its arguments when it is evaluated. The argument requirements for each predefined function are listed in RPL Predefined Functions section of the RiverWare help. If incorrect arguments are supplied to a predefined function, or the function fails to evaluate for other reasons, it may cause a fatal error. In this case, a message is posted in the Diagnostics Output Window and the run is immediately aborted.

The RPL processor automatically converts numeric values to the proper units for mathematical operations during RPL evaluation. As long as the unit type of a value is correct, its units can be converted without affecting the expression. If the dimensional analysis is incorrect, however, the RPL processor stops the run.

RPL unit type errors are only detected during evaluation.

RPL requires that an expression evaluating to a particular data type be present where that data type is expected. This is enforced during the building of RPL expressions by only enabling expressions of the correct type in the Palette and by generating a parse error if an incorrect expression is directly typed into the text field. The error message, previously discussed, would read, “The entered expression cannot replace the selected expression”.

Expressions of data type LIST are not verified during the building of RPL expressions. This is because a list may contain elements of any data type and because the number and type of list elements may change during the evaluation. As a result, inconsistent data types originating in lists will not be caught until the RPL expression or function is evaluated. These errors will stop evaluation immediately with an error.

If an object or slot which is referenced in a RPL expression does not exist on the workspace when the RPL expression is evaluated, a fatal RPL evaluation is produced. This can occur when the slot or object name was improperly entered in the RPL expression, when a RPL set is being used with the wrong model, or when object or data object slot names were changed after the RPL expression was created.

Names of objects and slots in a RPL set must exactly match an object and/or slot name on the workspace, including capitalization, spaces, and any underscores. Missing object or slot errors can be minimized by always using the Object Selector and Slot Selector to specify objects and slots in RPL expressions. Typing object or slot names directly into an expression textfield is not recommended due to the possibility of a syntax error.

These errors occur during the dispatching phase of a Rulebased Simulation run and only apply to Rulebased Simulation rulesets. These errors are produced when the controller priority and the priorities of slot values are such that objects cannot solve the model. These errors are usually caused by objects dispatching with an unintended dispatch method, excessive redispatching of an object, and/or an overdetermined multislot. When these occur, the Rulebased Simulation Controller cannot determine how to continue, and the run is aborted with an error.

Fatal Simulation errors are often the most complex errors to understand and debug. These errors occur during the simulation dispatching which takes place after a rule successfully sets a slot value. In order to simulate the effects of the new slot value, many objects may need to redispatch. The dispatch method with which each object redispatches is determined from the object’s slot priorities. Occasionally, the priorities of the slots are such that a unique dispatch method cannot be identified. When this happens, the object will attempt to redispatch with the same method as it dispatched with the last time. One of two error situations may result.

If the slot which was just set by a rule is solved for during this dispatch, the slot priority conflict will cause the run to abort with an error. The error often indicates:

Attempting to set senior slot (priority) with a junior priority (same priority).

Assignment attempted within the dispatch triggered by rule #same priority.

The object probably did not dispatch with the intended method.

When this error occurs, the rule at the indicated priority is usually to blame. Often, this rule has set a slot value at a priority which confuses the simulation into choosing the wrong dispatch method.

Another error situation which can result from incorrect dispatching is an infinite loop. This can occur between two objects which are both solving for the same slot. Each object successfully solves for a new value on the slot, overwriting the previous value. Each new slot assignment triggers the other object to redispatch, during which it also solves for a new value on the slot. This continues until the maximum iterations are reached on one of the objects’ slots or the modeler terminates the RiverWare session.

The maximum slot resets per timestep can be changed from the Run Parameters page of the Settings manager. Access it directly from the Run Control’s View menu and then Run Parameters. Then, change the maximum allowed slot resets per timestep (i.e. max iterations) as shown below in red. The default value is 40.

These errors occur when a rule is fired too many times within any timestep. Rules may not be evaluated more than the Maximum Rule Executions Per Timestep specified in the Run Parameters page of the Settings Manager (shown above in blue). The default maximum executions is 50. From the to open the dialog to change this value. A rule firing more than 50 times is usually an indicator of a circularity in the rule logic. Excessive rule firing and redispatching is an indication of a circularity in the ruleset design; one or more rules are dependent on the slots which they are setting. Even in the most complex rulesets, individual rules should not fire more than a few times in any given timestep. Unchecked, circularities would continue indefinitely, or until the user terminates the executable. But, when a rule is fired more than the maximum executions, the Rulebased Simulation Controller stops the run and posts this error to the Diagnostics Output Window, “Max rule executions exceeded for timestep.” Luckily, these types of circularities are rare.

RiverWare provides the following tools for helping the user to understand RPL evaluation and its consequences in rules, goals, methods, and expression slots:

With these tools it is possible to examine RPL behavior and make changes if that behavior is deemed to be unintended. For complex policies this process of policy debugging can be very time consuming. This document describes Debugging and the RPL Set Analysis Tool and provides links to documentation on diagnostics and the model run analysis tool.