[JBoss JIRA] (ELY-1608) Keystores do not expose same operation
by Martin Choma (JIRA)
Martin Choma created ELY-1608:
---------------------------------
Summary: Keystores do not expose same operation
Key: ELY-1608
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ELY-1608
Project: WildFly Elytron
Issue Type: Bug
Components: KeyStores
Affects Versions: 1.4.0.Final
Reporter: Martin Choma
This JIRA is in this stage for discussion purposed.
In context of https://issues.jboss.org/browse/PRODMGT-1907 I have compared operations of resources providing same capability in elytron subsystem.
I want to discuss.
*
{code}
diff key-store.operations ldap-key-store.operations
5,9d4
< "change-alias",
< "export-certificate",
< "generate-certificate-signing-request",
< "generate-key-pair",
< "import-certificate",
14d8
< "load",
34d27
< "store",
{code}
load() was introduced by EAP7-455
rest of operations were introduced by EAP7-650
Now question is if these operations (load() is already covered by PRODMGT-1907) shouldn be also in `ldap-key-store`.
* filtering-key-store
should it also contain extended operations or it is enough only underlying key-store has them
*
Keystore capability org.wildfly.security.key-store is referenced in filtering-key-store, key-manager, trust-manager, keystore-realm, token-realm . Is it necessary to propagate load operation also to these resources.
key-manager has init() operation. trust-manager does not have such operation but went through EAP7-455 so is probably ok. filtering-key-store probably does not "cache" keystore but request underlying keystore. What about keystore-realm, token-realm ?
* Although same resources "provide" same capability (org.wildfly.security.key-store) There is no guarantee they should provide same operations on model level, right? It is just user experience issue as one could expect same operations.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)
8 years
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1578) Add link in docs to decision table reference
by Tibor Zimányi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1578?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tibor Zimányi reassigned DROOLS-1578:
-------------------------------------
Assignee: Gaurav Dey (was: Mario Fusco)
> Add link in docs to decision table reference
> --------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1578
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1578
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Components: docs
> Reporter: Russell Morrisey
> Assignee: Gaurav Dey
>
> 6.5.3. How Decision Tables Work
> "Referring to row 14 (the row immediately after RuleTable), the keywords CONDITION and ACTION indicate that the data in the columns below are for either the LHS or the RHS parts of a rule. There are other attributes on the rule which can also be optionally set this way."
> What other attributes? Link me to an EBNF, a javadoc, or another part of the guide that has a complete reference.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)
8 years
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1518) Undecipherable stacktrace from rule that failed with exception
by Tibor Zimányi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1518?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tibor Zimányi closed DROOLS-1518.
---------------------------------
Resolution: Cannot Reproduce
Closing this because this probably works ok now. There is already a test for this here [1], which produces this stacktrace [2] when you comment out the assert and leave the exception to be thrown.
[1] https://github.com/kiegroup/drools/blob/b2f0e50eff5dd45a3963ecd20fb28e88c...
[2] https://gist.github.com/baldimir/411f5560bfea79e8e883406cece85fad
> Undecipherable stacktrace from rule that failed with exception
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1518
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1518
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core engine
> Affects Versions: 6.4.0.Final
> Reporter: Martin Sivak
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
>
> One of my rules failed, but I can't really tell which because the stacktrace is not telling me anything useful.
> {quote}java.lang.NullPointerException: null
> at ConditionEvaluatora9ca906eae5d402ebbfea1f192edea08.evaluate(Unknown Source) ~[na:na]
> at org.drools.core.rule.constraint.MvelConstraint.evaluate(MvelConstraint.java:258) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.rule.constraint.MvelConstraint.isAllowedCachedRight(MvelConstraint.java:241) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.
> Final]
> at org.drools.core.common.DoubleBetaConstraints.isAllowedCachedRight(DoubleBetaConstraints.java:120) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6
> .4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.PhreakJoinNode.doRightInserts(PhreakJoinNode.java:162) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.PhreakJoinNode.doNode(PhreakJoinNode.java:72) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleNetworkEvaluator.switchOnDoBetaNode(RuleNetworkEvaluator.java:519) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0
> .Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleNetworkEvaluator.evalBetaNode(RuleNetworkEvaluator.java:505) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final
> ]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleNetworkEvaluator.evalNode(RuleNetworkEvaluator.java:341) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleNetworkEvaluator.innerEval(RuleNetworkEvaluator.java:301) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleNetworkEvaluator.outerEval(RuleNetworkEvaluator.java:136) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleNetworkEvaluator.evaluateNetwork(RuleNetworkEvaluator.java:94) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Fin
> al]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleExecutor.reEvaluateNetwork(RuleExecutor.java:194) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.phreak.RuleExecutor.evaluateNetworkAndFire(RuleExecutor.java:73) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.common.DefaultAgenda.fireNextItem(DefaultAgenda.java:1007) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.common.DefaultAgenda.fireLoop(DefaultAgenda.java:1350) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.common.DefaultAgenda.fireAllRules(DefaultAgenda.java:1288) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.impl.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.internalFireAllRules(StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java:1306) ~[drools-core-6.4.
> 0.Final.jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.impl.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.fireAllRules(StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java:1297) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.
> jar:6.4.0.Final]
> at org.drools.core.impl.StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.fireAllRules(StatefulKnowledgeSessionImpl.java:1278) ~[drools-core-6.4.0.Final.
> jar:6.4.0.Final]
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)
8 years
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1476) Decision Tables (CSV) - Treat empty cells right from ObjectType declaration as merged
by Tibor Zimányi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1476?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tibor Zimányi updated DROOLS-1476:
----------------------------------
Tester: Tibor Zimányi (was: Martin Cimbalek)
> Decision Tables (CSV) - Treat empty cells right from ObjectType declaration as merged
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1476
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1476
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Components: decision tables
> Affects Versions: 7.0.0.Beta7
> Reporter: Martin Cimbalek
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
> Priority: Minor
>
> Because of CSV doesn't support merging cells like in .xls or .xlsx, saving decision table as .csv currently requires additional binding and matching instead of merging cells, which causes the merged columns are merged into one set of constraints.
> Proposing that empty cells right from ObjectType definition in CSV would be treated as the merged ones in .xls. This approach may be applicable also for .xls
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)
8 years
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1448) [XLS Decision Table] Integer values for Double attributes causes validation error
by Tibor Zimányi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1448?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tibor Zimányi commented on DROOLS-1448:
---------------------------------------
This behaviour is still the same, so leaving this open.
> [XLS Decision Table] Integer values for Double attributes causes validation error
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1448
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1448
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Affects Versions: 7.0.0.Beta6
> Reporter: Jozef Marko
> Assignee: Mario Fusco
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: dtable_testday_preparation, qe-test-day, reported-by-qe
> Attachments: Driver.java, ExamplePolicyPricing.xls, Policy.java, Screenshot from 2017-02-02 10-22-21.png
>
>
> If the XLS decision contains Integer values for column ( attribute ) that is Double data type, then the XLS decision table is not validated successfully. After conversion to guided decision table is the table validated successfully.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)
8 years
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1400) Comparison of DRL changes should not consider comments during incremental compilation
by Tibor Zimányi (JIRA)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1400?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Tibor Zimányi commented on DROOLS-1400:
---------------------------------------
Tested in current master and the test still fails, so leaving this open.
> Comparison of DRL changes should not consider comments during incremental compilation
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1400
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1400
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: core engine
> Affects Versions: 7.0.0.Beta5
> Reporter: Matteo Mortari
> Assignee: Matteo Mortari
> Priority: Minor
>
> Same as [DROOLS-1399] but concerning comments; in full below:
> During incremental compilation the equivalent DRL file contains only a modification +within a comment+. Currently, this triggers the incremental compilation to rebuild all the resources associated in that DRL file anyway. Consequently, a rule in that DRL file might be actually UNchanged; but following the explanation above, it will match and fire again, like it's a new/modified rule.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.5.0#75005)
8 years