Contradicting rules despite different active_loops

Rasa Open Source
1

Hi!

In Rasa 2.8.15 I’d like to build a bot that uses 3 consecutive forms to handle the users interest. For that I wrote two different rules:

rule: restart form_1 if user notices in form_2 that he made a mistake
  
condition:
    
active_loop: form_2
  
steps:
  - intent: made_mistake
  - action: action_deactivate_loop
  - active_loop: null
  - action: action_reset_form_1_slots
  - action: form_1
  - active_loop: form_1

rule: restart form_2 if user notices in form_3 that he made a mistake
 
condition:
    
active_loop: form_3
  
steps:
  - intent: made_mistake
  - action: action_deactivate_loop
  - active_loop: null
  - action: action_reset_form_2_slots
  - action: form_2
  - active_loop: form_2

When I try to train a model with these rules, a contradiction between those two is thrown. But since they have different conditions, I can’t see the contradiction. Also having the active_loop as first step instead of a condition doesn’t prevent the throwing of contradiction.

I’m wondering if Rasa isn’t able to tell different active_loops apart? But I didn’t found anything on that in the documentary, so maye you can help me…

2

Hello,

I think that rules are not a good way to do it.

What this rasa tutorial, it teaches how to build this with an action:

3

Thank you for your reply! What you suggest is the implementation of a form validator. We actually use it, but for me it seems that the range of this is only to validate the input, not to react to technically-valid-but-refused-by-users-intent-input. The problem I face isn’t filtering incorrect inputs, it is handling inputs that were correct once but now become incorrect. For that a form validator - at least the simple one implemented in the tutorial you linked - wouldn’t do, I think.

Anyways, my rules seem to work properly now. I found a minor typing error in one of them, fixed it and suddenly the contradicting rules error was gone. I assume that the error message is just thrown whenever something is wrong with a rule and so a bit misleading. Or I missed anything else.

1 Like