[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] Updated: (JBRULES-1047) class Cast Exception when using OR (||)

class Cast Exception when using OR (||) --------------------------------------- Key: JBRULES-1047 URL: http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1047 Project: JBoss Rules Issue Type: Bug Security Level: Public(Everyone can see) Affects Versions: 4.0.0.GA Environment: Windows, X86 Reporter: Arjun Dhar Assigned To: Edson Tirelli Priority: Trivial Fix For: 4.0.1 When I define a rule: When cntct:Contact (initialized==true) exr:Relation( contact==cntct, active:active==$1, relationName=="Old") Then contact.getStatus().setStatus(true); contact.getStatus().addToReasonTrace(drools.getRule().getName()); end ..The bove works. BUT, when I do the following: When cntct:Contact (initialized==true) exr:Relation( contact==cntct, active:active==$1, relationName=="Old") || Relation( contact==cntct, active:active==$1, relationName==null) Then contact.getStatus().setStatus(true); contact.getStatus().addToReasonTrace(drools.getRule().getName()); end ... The script compiles anda stateless Session is created successfully, but at runtime/execution it fails with the exception: java.lang.ClassCastException: com.arjun.brms.businessObjects.Contact org.drools.rule.EvalCondition.isAllowed(EvalCondition.java:75) org.drools.reteoo.EvalConditionNode.assertTuple (EvalConditionNode.java:141) org.drools.reteoo.SingleTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertTuple (SingleTupleSinkAdapter.java:20) org.drools.reteoo.JoinNode.assertTuple(JoinNode.java:120) org.drools.reteoo.SingleTupleSinkAdapter.propagateAssertTuple (SingleTupleSinkAdapter.java:20) org.drools.reteoo.JoinNode.assertObject(JoinNode.java:162) org.drools.reteoo.CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject (CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.java:317) org.drools.reteoo.AlphaNode.assertObject (AlphaNode.java:130) org.drools.reteoo.CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject (CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.java:308) org.drools.reteoo.AlphaNode.assertObject(AlphaNode.java:130) org.drools.reteoo.CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject (CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.java:308) org.drools.reteoo.ObjectTypeNode.assertObject(ObjectTypeNode.java:168) org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:168) org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java :190) org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:70) org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:848) org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java :822) org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.java:623) Class diagram: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Contact<-- bi-directional association -->List<Relation> ============================================================================= Edson comments (Response) : ----------------------------------------- It is a bug since a more friendly message should be raised at compile time stating that your "contact" declaration is not available in one of your logical branches. Having said that, what you want to do is make your OR take priority over the implicit AND and as such, you need to add () around the OR: When contact:Contact (initialized==true) exr: ( Relation( contact==cntct, active:active==$1, relationName=="Old") or Relation( contact==cntct, active:active==$1, relationName==null) ) Then contact.getStatus().setStatus(true); contact.getStatus().addToReasonTrace(drools.getRule().getName()); end Having said that, better yet for you would not to use the OR CE, but to use restriction connectives. This would be the most efficient (and clean) way of writing your rule: When contact:Contact (initialized==true) exr: Relation( contact==cntct, active:active==$1, relationName =="Old" || == null ) Then contact.getStatus().setStatus(true); contact.getStatus().addToReasonTrace(drools.getRule().getName()); end As a syntax sugar, you could also write: exr: Relation( contact==cntct, active:active==$1, relationName in ( "Old", null ) ) Can you please open a JIRA with your test case for the bug? Thank you, Edson ------------------- Note: The above suggestion worked, no runtime errors with it.