[rules-users] lock-on-active

[Stephen Masters]

Interesting. It would probably help if the docs made that clear. :)

I’m off to get myself some sleep just now, but I’ll do a push of the repo to GitHub tomorrow and point you at the tests.

A summary of the behaviour is that I was seeing multiple activations of a rule, which went away when I added “lock-on-active” to that rule. However, that didn’t prevent other rules from activating afterwards. Unfortunately in a separate test, which added some more rules which would activate first, that rule ceased to activate at all. Despite the fact that it was the only rule with “lock-on-active” and no rules had an "agenda-group" attribute.

This is using 5.5. I’ll probably be upgrading to the 5.6 CR tomorrow or at the weekend, so I should be able to confirm what happens there.

I came across it because I was experimenting with mechanisms to ensure that a rule only activates once. It’s something that I find quite useful in a stateless session.

Steve


On 7 Nov 2013, at 22:29, Davide Sottara <dsotty at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lock-on-active was very recently the subject of a bad bug, DROOLS-281,
> which has been fixed a few days ago.
> This said, all rules that do not have an explicit group set end up in
> the "MAIN" (or "DEFAULT", I don't remember)
> agenda group and then behave accordingly.
> Could you post the Drools version number and some more details on the
> example and the "unexpected" behavior?
> Thanks
> Davide
> 
> 
> On 11/07/2013 03:01 PM, Stephen Masters wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>> 
>> According to the user guide, lock-on-active “inhibits additional activations of all rules with this flag set within the same rule flow or agenda group”.
>> 
>> I was doing a little testing of some rules earlier today, and noticed that lock-on-active seems to change behaviour when applied to rules which don’t have an agenda-group or rules flow-group defined. It also seemed to have a slightly inconsistent effect, although that may just be me not realising what it’s supposed to do.
>> 
>> There doesn’t appear to be any documentation of what the attribute means when a rule is not part of a rule flow or agenda group. So I was wondering whether perhaps there is an expected/official behaviour, which is just not documented. Or is lock-on-active without a rule flow or agenda group an error? In which case is there a reason why it doesn’t cause a compilation error when the knowledge base is built?
>> 
>> Yours curiously...
>> 
>> Steve
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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