[rules-users] Bug in "not" ???

[miguel machado]

glad i could help.
_ miguel



2010/5/6 <Tom.E.Murphy at wellsfargo.com>

>  Actually, in the light of day, I see why it behaved as it did. It doesn’t
> seem to be caused by the AccountHolder as such, but more the Employment
> object – if there are two of them, one with an accountholder and
> BusinessName that met the criteria, and one without, then the rule will fire
> whether the not is used or not, just on different instances of Employment.
>
>
>
> Thanks for triggering the thought process, Miguel.
>
>
>
> *Tom Murphy*
> *Business Process Consultant
> Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform
> 800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266
> MAC: **X2301-01B**
> **Office: **515 324 4853** | **Mobile: 515 423 4334**
> **This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If
> you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee,
> you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message
> or any information herein.  If you have received this message in error,
> please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
> message.  Thank you for your cooperation.*
>
>
>
> *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:
> rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *miguel machado
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:19 AM
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Bug in "not" ???
>
>
>
> This is not entirely true: you may have different objects in memory in such
> a way that both fires rule. In this case, if you had two (or more!)
> AccountHolders for the same Employment, each of those having different
> BusinessName's associated, both rules (with and without the 'not') would
> fire.
>
>
>
> Does that make sense?
>
> _ miguel
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2010/5/5 <Tom.E.Murphy at wellsfargo.com>
>
> The following rule fires both when the “not” is there, and also if the
> “not” is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is something
> wrong somewhere.
>
>
>
>
> --
> "To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>


-- 
"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20100506/2bf32ea9/attachment-0001.html