[jboss-jira] [JBoss JIRA] (JBRULES-3320) Stateful memory corruption for repetitive updates on the same facts

Stateful memory corruption for repetitive updates on the same facts ------------------------------------------------------------------- Key: JBRULES-3320 URL: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320 Project: Drools Issue Type: Bug Security Level: Public(Everyone can see) Components: drools-core (expert) Affects Versions: 5.3.0.Final, 5.4.0.Beta1 Environment: Windows 7 64, Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server 1.6.0_25 Reporter: guy ramirez Assignee: Edson Tirelli Multiple updates to the same fact does not yield the expected results (similar to JBRULES-2809 issue) The provided UT (see 'steps to reproduce' section) makes use of 2 fact instances: one IntervalRequirement (never updated) and one ShiftAssignment. The same ShiftAssignment will be updated multiple times to cover one or more IntervalRequirement(s). Here is the output of the test without executing the assertions. For each update I have added comments explaining what the expected results should be: Update #1: ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101 intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 103, staffingRequired: 2 intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired: 2 intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired: 2 COMMENTS: correct Update #2:ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 103 intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) COMMENTS: intervalRequirementNotCovered rule should have fired for interval 103 Update #3:ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 102 intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired: 2 intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) COMMENT: intervalRequirementNotCovered rule should have fired for interval 103 Update #4:ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 104 intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 103, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s) COMMENT: correct Update #5:ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101 intervalRequirementTotallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100, staffingRequired: 2 covered by 2 ShiftAssignment(s) intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 103, staffingRequired: 2 intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired: 2 intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired: 2 COMMENT: results should have been identical of that of update #1: intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered should have fired for interval 100, instead intervalRequirementTotallyCovered rule fired.