On Tue, Oct 11, 2022 at 12:50:38AM +0200, Wolfgang Breyha wrote: > > And another quite simple ruleset... > meta __SA4TA3_1 6 > meta __SA4TA3_2 2 > meta __SA4TA3 (__SA4TA3_1 > 2) && (__SA4TA3_2 > 1) > doesn't set __SA4TA3. This was working an SA3.4 as well.
Works fine here. > Is this wanted behavior or a bug? Since UPGRADE does not contain any > information about basic changes for meta rules I assume it is a > bug/regression. But if this is wanted how should this be done on SA4? >From UPGRADE: - Meta rules no longer use priority values, they are evaluated dynamically when the rules they depend on are finished. (Bug 7735)
