[rules-users] (no subject)

[Esteban Aliverti]

I had some tests working fine in jbpm 5.1 but failing in 5.3 because of
this same reason. I'm not sure if this is this is a regression bug or if
there is a deliberated change in the behavior.
Maybe someone in the jbpm dev team can shed some light here.

Best Regards,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Esteban Aliverti
- Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com
- Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com


2012/2/13 Alberto R. Galdo <argaldo at gmail.com>

>
> According to the documentation:
>
> "Rule constraints do not have direct access to variables defined inside
>> the process.
>> It is however possible to refer to the current process instance inside a
>> rule constraint,
>> by adding the process instance to the Working Memory and matching for the
>> process instance in your rule constraint.
>> We have added special logic to make sure that a variable processInstance
>> of type WorkflowProcessInstance
>> will only match to the current process instance and not to other process
>> instances in the Working Memory.
>> Note that you are however responsible yourself to insert the process
>> instance into the session and,
>> possibly, to update it, for example, using Java code or an on-entry or
>> on-exit or explicit action in your process.
>> The following example of a rule constraint will search for a person with
>> the same name as the value stored in the variable "name" of the process:"
>>
>
>
> This however does not seem to be true.
>
> The first rule is to receive a stream of objects of type MyObject.
> This rule starts an associated process.
>
> The second rule will be called by the process (from bpmn).
>
> Within the process there a task that invokes an an asynchronous service,
> ie,
> an implementation of WorkItemHandler that contains a Thread that will set
> call
> manager.completeWorkItem(workItemId,results);
> when 30s have passed).
>
> With this setup we can observe what happens when 2 MyObject instances come
> into the first rule separated by a short period of time (say 5 seconds).
>
> When the first object comes in a process is created and started (with
> process id=1)
> The process passes from the start node to the callMyTask node, which
> invokes the slow WorkItemHandler references by MyTask
> (which we have previously registered into session.getWorkItemManager() ).
> Because the WorkItemHandler has a thread that waits 30s before completing
> the work item, it just sits there doing nothing (so far everything is ok)
> and allows the engine to process other events.
>
> 5 seconds later we insert another MyObject into the stream.
> The first rule gets fired and created another process (with process id=2).
> The process passes from the start node to the callMyTask node, which
> invoke our slow service.
>
> We have thus two processes running in parallel.
>
> When the first callMyTask node completes, the next node completeTask is
> invoked.
>
> The rule "process complete" is matched as it belongs to the rule flow
> group "Complete task group".
>
> At this point we observe that the rule is matched twice spitting out:
>
>     processInstance.id 2
>     processInstance.id 1
> .
> So the rule has matched both process instances that are in working memory
> and not just the one (with process id 1)
> that called the "process complete" rule.
>
>
>
> The rule file
> -------------
>
> rule "New case"
>     when
>         $myobject : MyObject(processed==false) from entry-point "myobject
> stream"
>     then
>         ProcessInstance
> processInstance=kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().createProcessInstance("com.mycompany.process.MyProcess",
> parameters);
>         insert(processInstance);
>
> kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().startProcessInstance(processInstance.getId());
>         modify ($myobject){
>             setProcessed(true)
>         }
>     end
>
> rule "process complete"
>     ruleflow-group "Complete task group"
>     no-loop true
>     when
>         $processInstance: WorkflowProcessInstance()
>     then
>         System.out.println("processInstance.id " +
> $processInstance.getId());
>     end
>
>
> The BPMN xml
> ------------
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <definitions id="Definition"
>              targetNamespace="http://www.jboss.org/drools"
>              typeLanguage="http://www.java.com/javaTypes"
>              expressionLanguage="http://www.mvel.org/2.0"
>              xmlns="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL"
>              xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>              xsi:schemaLocation="
> http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL BPMN20.xsd"
>              xmlns:g="http://www.jboss.org/drools/flow/gpd"
>              xmlns:bpmndi="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/DI"
>              xmlns:dc="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DC"
>              xmlns:di="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DI"
>              xmlns:tns="http://www.jboss.org/drools">
>
>     <process processType="Private" isExecutable="true"
> id="com.mycompany.process.MyProcess" name="my process" >
>
>         <!-- process variables -->
>
>         <!-- nodes -->
>         <startEvent id="start" name="StartProcess" />
>
>         <task id="callMyTask" name="call my task" tns:taskName="MyTask" >
>             <ioSpecification>
>             </ioSpecification>
>         </task>
>
>
>         <businessRuleTask id="completeTask" name="Complete slow task"
> g:ruleFlowGroup="Complete task group" >
>         </businessRuleTask>
>
>         <endEvent id="end" name="EndProcess" />
>
>         <!-- connections -->
>         <sequenceFlow id="start-callMyTask" sourceRef="start"
> targetRef="callMyTask" />
>         <sequenceFlow id="callMyTask-completeTask" sourceRef="callMyTask"
> targetRef="completeTask" />
>         <sequenceFlow id="completeTask-end" sourceRef="completeTask"
> targetRef="end" />
>     </process>
> </definitions>
>
>
> What's wrong with this?  Isn't WorkflowProcessInstance() supposed to be
> attached to the calling ProcessInstance?  Is there another way of getting
> the group of rules fire only for the processinstance that called it?
>
>
> Greets,
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20120213/a81ee1c7/attachment.html