[rules-users] Semantic of rules with not and coincide

[IK81]

Thanks a lot for clarification. My naive interpretation was that 
coincide with a is a combination of before and after.

Best regards,
Ingo


On 2013-12-08 19:29, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> The "second" event hasn't happened at the time the first has 
> happened.
> Thus, the negation (no Event coincides) *is* true.
>
> Perhaps it helps to read "not" as "does not exist" (which is what it
> actually stands for) when looking at the rule. Indeed, there *is* no
> coinciding event at the time the Event is inserted.
>
> -W
>
>
> On 06/12/2013, IK81 <ml at kofler.me> wrote:
>> Yes, this was my assumption and it is also what I want. I don't care 
>> if
>> code C1 is reported before C2 or vice versa. They just have to 
>> happen
>> within 1 minute.
>>
>> However, the semantic of coincide in combination with not is unclear 
>> to
>> me. Why can the rule fire
>> at event insertion time when the engine does not know if the second
>> event will not happen without
>> waiting for an additional minute?
>>
>> Ingo
>>
>> On 2013-12-06 09:22, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
>>> Coincides is symmetric in time. You might want to use before or
>>> after.
>>> -W
>>>
>>>
>>> On 06/12/2013, IK81 <ml at kofler.me> wrote:
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> I am currently stuck with a problem concerning the use of not and
>>>> conincide. I want to analyze a stream of error code events from a
>>>> set of
>>>> devices and detect the following situations. Every event has a
>>>> timestamp
>>>> (long), a device id (String) and an error code (String).
>>>>
>>>> What I want to detect is the following
>>>> - If I get two events, one with code C1 and one with C2 from a
>>>> single
>>>> device within 1 minute, it represents a special event combination.
>>>> The
>>>> order of their appearence is not relevant.
>>>> - If I just get C1 (without the C2 within the time frame), just
>>>> report
>>>> C1
>>>> - If I just get C2 (without the C1 within the time frame), just
>>>> report
>>>> C2
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I can successfully detect the special event combination with the
>>>> following rule
>>>>
>>>> rule "Detect combination"
>>>> when
>>>>      $e1 : Event ($d: device, code == "C1")
>>>>      $e2 : Event (device == $d, code == "C2", this coincides [1m]
>>>> $e1)
>>>> then
>>>>      ... do some output
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then I tried to implement the detection of C1 only as follows
>>>>
>>>> rule "Detect code C1"
>>>> when
>>>> 	$e1 : Event ($d: device, code == "C1")
>>>> 	not ( $e2 : Event (device == $d, code == "C2", this coincides 
>>>> [1m]
>>>> $e1))
>>>> then
>>>>      ... do some other output
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> My understanding of the rule is that it should fire, if I get the
>>>> event
>>>> with code C1 and there is no other event with error code C2 for 
>>>> the
>>>> same
>>>> device that happens within one minute before and after the C1 
>>>> event.
>>>> To
>>>> my surprise, the rule fires immediately when I insert an event 
>>>> with
>>>> error code C1. Shouldn't the implementation wait at least 1 minute
>>>> to be
>>>> sure that no C2 error event will be inserted?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BTW this is how I insert the events in my test case:
>>>>
>>>> 	clock.advanceTime(70,  TimeUnit.SECONDS);
>>>> 	FactHandle handle1 = ksession.insert( new Event(65000, "A", "C1")
>>>> );
>>>> 	ksession.fireAllRules();
>>>> 	clock.advanceTime( 10, TimeUnit.SECONDS );
>>>> 	FactHandle handle2 = ksession.insert( new Event(75000, "A", "C2")
>>>> );
>>>> 	ksession.fireAllRules();
>>>> 	clock.advanceTime( 2, TimeUnit.SECONDS );
>>>>
>>>> And this is mainly the output I get:
>>>>
>>>> detected code C1 @ 70000
>>>>    event id=44b895e5-7287-404b-8204-3de5690b2360 timestamp=65000
>>>> device=A code=C1
>>>> detected combination @ 80000
>>>>    event id=44b895e5-7287-404b-8204-3de5690b2360 timestamp=65000
>>>> device=A code=C1
>>>>    event id=fc89715b-fc30-4b12-ab31-a3884dcd4886 timestamp=75000
>>>> device=A code=C2
>>>>
>>>> Any ideas concerning an alternative solution are highly welcomed.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Ingo
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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