[rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final

Mon Feb 13 15:53:31 EST 2012

This is fine.

5.2 onwards groups columns for the same pattern together - if you looked at
the DRL fo 5.0 you'd have seen the columns are effectively grouped together
too.

For example; given the following 5.0 configuration (taken from what you
describe you have done):-

Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
Pattern $b : Column B - Condition 1
Pattern $c : Column C - Condition 1
Pattern $d : Column D - Condition 1
Pattern $a : Column E - Condition 2
Pattern $b : Column F - Condition 2

5.0 DRL

$a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
$d : Pattern( Condition 1 )

Importing this into 5.3 groups the columns:-

Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
Pattern $a : Column B - Condition 2
Pattern $b : Column C - Condition 1
Pattern $b : Column D - Condition 2
Pattern $c : Column E - Condition 1
Pattern $d : Column F - Condition 1

5.2 DRL

$a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
$d : Pattern( Condition 1 )

Furthermore, at the request of the community, the behavior of "default
values" changed so that the are only the default value for a new row (5.2
onwards) and not the value used for an empty cell (5.0). I know this has
caused some re-work for people migrating a legacy decision table from 5.0
to 5.2 but since the impact, to date, has been small I do not plan on
making any programmatic changes.

With kind regards,

Mike

2012/2/13 jian zhi <jianpzhi at yahoo.com>

> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the detail explanation.
>
> I found that the order of the conditions were changed again after I added
> two more conditions to the same package I used last time.
> I added default value to the first two conditions. Added the fifth
> condition by using the binding name created for the first condition.Add the
> sixth condition by using the binding name created for the second condition.
> After I import the data to 5.3 the fifth condition became the second and
> the sixth condition became the fourth. Also the default value for the first
> and second conditions are not listed in the rule source in 5.3. Could you
> please take a look? I attach the modified repository in the email.
>
> Thanks a lot,
> Jian
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>
> *To:* drools-user <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2012 12:59 PM
> *Subject:* [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0
> to 5.3Final
>
> I suspect ConsumerAccountAssociationFact.hasAnyAccountClosed is a boolean.
>
> In 5.3 we handle data-types better than 5.0, so String, Numbers, Dates are
> Booleans have editors appropriate for the data-type and the resulting DRL
> only escapes values with quotation marks where needed (i.e. Strings and
> Dates). Boolean's in the table are now shown as Checkboxes. If the value is
> "true" it is ticked, if the value is "false" the checkbox is not ticked.
>
> I don't therefore believe there is any problem.
>
> On 10 February 2012 16:35, jian zhi <jianpzhi at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for the quick response. I downloaded the war and tested the fix.
> The order of the conditions are correct now. There is still a small problem
> in the last condition.
>
> In Drools 5.0 the source is consumerAccount :
> ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ).
> In Drools 5.3 the source is consumerAccount :
> ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == false ). It displays
> a square check box in the cell.
>
> Could you please take a look?
> Thanks,
> Jian
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>
> *To:* jian zhi <jianpzhi at yahoo.com>; Rules Users List <
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:55 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to
> 5.3Final
>
> You can get a build containing the fix from Nexus:
>
>
> https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/index.html#nexus-search;gav~org.drools~guvnor-webapp~5.3.2-SNAPSHOT~~
>
> 2012/2/8 jian zhi <jianpzhi at yahoo.com>
>
> Mike,
>
> Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3?
>
> Thanks,
> Jian
>
>   ------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:17 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to
> 5.3Final
>
> The problem has existed since 5.2 and would potentially affect loading any
> earlier version.
> Prior to 5.2 the object model used by the guided decision table did not
> hold a Pattern to which individual condition columns are bound.
> The conversion code groups individual condition columns into the
> appropriate group and moves the underlying column data accordingly (as
> there was no guarantee columns with the same bound name were consecutive).
> There was a problem with the creation and insertion of the new Pattern
> objects that relied upon the order of entries in a HashMap being
> consistent. This has now changed.
> I know others have been using the new guided decision table with old
> repositories without problem and our unit tests did not detect the problem
> either.
> AFAIK this is the first report of any such issue since the release of
> 5.2's betas, however I would be wrong to say there is no risk.
> sent on the move
> On 8 Feb 2012 01:22, "vadlam" <sreeram.vadlamudi at wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>
> does this issue happen for any previous version of Guvnor data such as 5.0
> or 5.1 or 5.2 exported and imported into a Guvnor 5.3 repository ?
>
> does this mean, we cannot rely on 5.3.0 version of Guvnor code when
> migrating data from a previous version and should rather apply the fix  ?
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Migrating-repository-data-from-Drools-5-0-to-5-3Final-tp3715772p3724570.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cec0ea7f/attachment.html 