[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-3512) [DMN Designer] Increase maximal size of diagram nodes, and include text wrapping.
by Michael Anstis (Jira)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-3512?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Michael Anstis commented on DROOLS-3512:
----------------------------------------
[~thomas.mantegazzi] [~dadossan] is working on another JIRA to improve the labelling of nodes.
Is this JIRA to support wrapping or did you really want nodes to be allowed to be bigger too?
> [DMN Designer] Increase maximal size of diagram nodes, and include text wrapping.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-3512
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-3512
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Components: DMN Editor
> Affects Versions: 7.15.0.Final
> Reporter: Thomas Mantegazzi
> Assignee: Daniel José dos Santos
> Priority: Major
> Attachments: image-2019-01-14-09-07-56-069.png
>
>
> If a decision name becomes too long the name will overflow the Decision diagram.
> !image-2019-01-14-09-07-56-069.png|thumbnail!
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (WFCORE-4275) SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase fails sometimes
by Richard Opalka (Jira)
Richard Opalka created WFCORE-4275:
--------------------------------------
Summary: SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase fails sometimes
Key: WFCORE-4275
URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WFCORE-4275
Project: WildFly Core
Issue Type: Bug
Components: Test Suite
Affects Versions: 8.0.0.Beta2
Reporter: Richard Opalka
Fix For: 8.0.0.Beta3
[INFO] Running org.jboss.as.test.manualmode.suspend.SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase
[ERROR] Tests run: 2, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 19.685 s <<< FAILURE! - in org.jboss.as.test.manualmode.suspend.SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase
[ERROR] testSuspendOnSoftKillNegativeTimeout(org.jboss.as.test.manualmode.suspend.SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase) Time elapsed: 5.144 s <<< FAILURE!
org.junit.ComparisonFailure: expected:<SUSPEND[ED]> but was:<SUSPEND[ING]>
at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:115)
at org.junit.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:144)
at org.jboss.as.test.manualmode.suspend.SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase.suspendOnSoftKillTest(SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase.java:228)
at org.jboss.as.test.manualmode.suspend.SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase.testSuspendOnSoftKillNegativeTimeout(SuspendOnSoftKillTestCase.java:126)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:62)
at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:498)
at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod$1.runReflectiveCall(FrameworkMethod.java:50)
at org.junit.internal.runners.model.ReflectiveCallable.run(ReflectiveCallable.java:12)
at org.junit.runners.model.FrameworkMethod.invokeExplosively(FrameworkMethod.java:47)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.InvokeMethod.evaluate(InvokeMethod.java:17)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:27)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runLeaf(ParentRunner.java:325)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:78)
at org.junit.runners.BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.runChild(BlockJUnit4ClassRunner.java:57)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
at org.junit.internal.runners.statements.RunAfters.evaluate(RunAfters.java:27)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
at org.wildfly.core.testrunner.WildflyTestRunner.run(WildflyTestRunner.java:109)
at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:128)
at org.junit.runners.Suite.runChild(Suite.java:27)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$3.run(ParentRunner.java:290)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$1.schedule(ParentRunner.java:71)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.runChildren(ParentRunner.java:288)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.access$000(ParentRunner.java:58)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner$2.evaluate(ParentRunner.java:268)
at org.junit.runners.ParentRunner.run(ParentRunner.java:363)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junitcore.JUnitCore.run(JUnitCore.java:55)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junitcore.JUnitCoreWrapper.createRequestAndRun(JUnitCoreWrapper.java:137)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junitcore.JUnitCoreWrapper.executeEager(JUnitCoreWrapper.java:107)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junitcore.JUnitCoreWrapper.execute(JUnitCoreWrapper.java:83)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junitcore.JUnitCoreWrapper.execute(JUnitCoreWrapper.java:75)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.junitcore.JUnitCoreProvider.invoke(JUnitCoreProvider.java:158)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.invokeProviderInSameClassLoader(ForkedBooter.java:383)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.runSuitesInProcess(ForkedBooter.java:344)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.execute(ForkedBooter.java:125)
at org.apache.maven.surefire.booter.ForkedBooter.main(ForkedBooter.java:417)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1867) Verification reporting: Adapt reporting levels according to Hit Policy
by Toni Rikkola (Jira)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1867?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Toni Rikkola updated DROOLS-1867:
---------------------------------
Priority: Minor (was: Major)
> Verification reporting: Adapt reporting levels according to Hit Policy
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1867
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1867
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Guided Decision Table Editor
> Affects Versions: 7.0.0.Beta7
> Reporter: Jozef Marko
> Assignee: Toni Rikkola
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: reported-by-qe, verifier
>
> Reporting levels in the verification result's shouldn't be same for all hit policies. For example: Verification should detect redundancy and subsumption as errors for the Unique Hit Policy. Currently the verification detects these just as warnings for the Unique Hit Policy.
> Please revise reporting levels used for different hit policies and ensure that the behavior of verification checks corresponds to the selected Hit Policy.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1874) Verification reporting: Impossible match is detected just for equality operator
by Toni Rikkola (Jira)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1874?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Toni Rikkola updated DROOLS-1874:
---------------------------------
Priority: Minor (was: Major)
> Verification reporting: Impossible match is detected just for equality operator
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1874
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1874
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Guided Decision Table Editor
> Affects Versions: 7.0.0.CR2
> Reporter: Jozef Marko
> Assignee: Toni Rikkola
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: reported-by-qe, verifier
>
> The feature of detecting impossible match stopped to work for condition columns that uses operators less than and greater than. If the condition columns uses equality operator, then the impossible match is detected.
> Steps to reproduce:
> # Create Guided Decision Table
> # Create two columns that do check like: *p : Person(name == [value])*
> # Append row into table
> # In first column check that name equals to "John"
> # In second column check that name equals to "john"
> # Impossible match is detected in this case
> # Create another Guided Decision table
> # Create one column that do check like: *p : Person(age < [value])*
> # Create other column that do check like: *p : Person(age > [value])*
> # Append row into the table
> # Check that age is less than 10 in first column
> # Check that age is greater than 20 in second column
> # Impossible match *is not* thrown, but it is expected
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1874) Verification reporting: Impossible match is detected just for equality operator
by Toni Rikkola (Jira)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1874?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Toni Rikkola updated DROOLS-1874:
---------------------------------
Priority: Major (was: Minor)
> Verification reporting: Impossible match is detected just for equality operator
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1874
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1874
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Sub-task
> Components: Guided Decision Table Editor
> Affects Versions: 7.0.0.CR2
> Reporter: Jozef Marko
> Assignee: Toni Rikkola
> Priority: Major
> Labels: reported-by-qe, verifier
>
> The feature of detecting impossible match stopped to work for condition columns that uses operators less than and greater than. If the condition columns uses equality operator, then the impossible match is detected.
> Steps to reproduce:
> # Create Guided Decision Table
> # Create two columns that do check like: *p : Person(name == [value])*
> # Append row into table
> # In first column check that name equals to "John"
> # In second column check that name equals to "john"
> # Impossible match is detected in this case
> # Create another Guided Decision table
> # Create one column that do check like: *p : Person(age < [value])*
> # Create other column that do check like: *p : Person(age > [value])*
> # Append row into the table
> # Check that age is less than 10 in first column
> # Check that age is greater than 20 in second column
> # Impossible match *is not* thrown, but it is expected
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1825) [Guided Decision Table] Ability to change HIT policy in a decision table anytime
by Toni Rikkola (Jira)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1825?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Toni Rikkola commented on DROOLS-1825:
--------------------------------------
[~jomarko] Let's make the BPAL like you suggested.
> [Guided Decision Table] Ability to change HIT policy in a decision table anytime
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1825
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1825
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Enhancement
> Components: Guided Decision Table Editor
> Affects Versions: 7.1.0.Beta2
> Reporter: Ivo Bek
> Assignee: Toni Rikkola
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: UX, UXTeam, drools-tools, verifier
> Attachments: DROOLS-1825 (Parent Rule).png, DecisionTable1.png, DecisionTable2.png, GDTAnalysis(a)2x.png, GDTColumns(a)2x.png
>
> Original Estimate: 1 week
> Remaining Estimate: 1 week
>
> Today, it's possible to set 1 of 5 HIT policies when we create a new guided decision table. However, the user might not know which HIT policy he/she should use at this early beginning. Therefore, it should be possible to set the policy to None when we create a new guided decision table and set the HIT policy later after we add columns and rows, fill in some data and see and decide based on the created table how the rules should behave using the HIT policy.
> Thus, it should be possible to change HIT policy in a decision table anytime.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1803) single hit status lost
by Jozef Marko (Jira)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1803?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Jozef Marko updated DROOLS-1803:
--------------------------------
Tester: Jozef Marko
> single hit status lost
> ----------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1803
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1803
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Guided Decision Table Editor
> Affects Versions: 7.3.0.Final
> Reporter: Vijay Yadav
> Assignee: Toni Rikkola
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: verifier
>
> rule "first rule"
> dialect "mvel"
> when
> pl: Player(score>=50)
> then
> //do something
> end
> rule "second rule"
> dialect "mvel"
> when
> pl:Player(score<50, score >=25)
> then
> //do something
> These rule results into "single hit status lost". This means more than one row from this table can fire at the same time and the table no longer has the single hit status.
> while we can see that only one rule can fire. Conditions aren't overlapping.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months
[JBoss JIRA] (DROOLS-1803) single hit status lost
by Toni Rikkola (Jira)
[ https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1803?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugi... ]
Toni Rikkola updated DROOLS-1803:
---------------------------------
Priority: Critical (was: Major)
> single hit status lost
> ----------------------
>
> Key: DROOLS-1803
> URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/DROOLS-1803
> Project: Drools
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Guided Decision Table Editor
> Affects Versions: 7.3.0.Final
> Reporter: Vijay Yadav
> Assignee: Toni Rikkola
> Priority: Critical
> Labels: verifier
>
> rule "first rule"
> dialect "mvel"
> when
> pl: Player(score>=50)
> then
> //do something
> end
> rule "second rule"
> dialect "mvel"
> when
> pl:Player(score<50, score >=25)
> then
> //do something
> These rule results into "single hit status lost". This means more than one row from this table can fire at the same time and the table no longer has the single hit status.
> while we can see that only one rule can fire. Conditions aren't overlapping.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v7.12.1#712002)
7 years, 6 months