11:41 a.m.
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: 5.4.0.Beta1, 5.3.0.Final
Environment: Windows 7 64, Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server 1.6.0_25
Reporter: guy ramirez
Assignee: Mark Proctor
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
10:12 p.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Mark Proctor reassigned JBRULES-3320:
-------------------------------------
Assignee: Edson Tirelli (was: Mark Proctor)
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
4:50 a.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Geoffrey De Smet commented on JBRULES-3320:
-------------------------------------------
@guy: might you want to create a pull request to add that test on MiscTest or
TruthMaintenanceTest?
drools/drools-compiler/src/test/java/org/drools/integrationtests/TruthMaintenanceTest.java
Issues with pull requests get resolved much faster than other issues.
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/pulls
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
6:02 p.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
guy ramirez commented on JBRULES-3320:
--------------------------------------
@Geoffrey: sent a pull request (updated TruthMaintenanceTest as suggested)
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
8:59 a.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Geoffrey De Smet commented on JBRULES-3320:
-------------------------------------------
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/pull/115
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11:25 a.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Edson Tirelli commented on JBRULES-3320:
----------------------------------------
My understanding is that this test is wrong. The behavior of the engine is correct. I will
comment inline on the results you are seeing using >>>:
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
>> The engine is not firing the rule for interval 103 because if
was already fired in the previous scenario and the IntervalRequirement fact did not
change.
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
>> The engine is not firing the rule for interval 103 because if
was already fired in the first scenario and the IntervalRequirement fact did not change.
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
The log on the last scenario for me correctly shows:
Update #5:ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101
ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 103, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100,
staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s)
I am testing this against 5.4 and 5.5 HEAD as of today.
I am closing this ticket as not a bug. Feel free to reopen the ticket if you still see a
problem.
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11:27 a.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Edson Tirelli edited comment on JBRULES-3320 at 4/30/12 12:26 PM:
------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding is that this test is wrong. The behavior of the engine is correct. I will
comment inline on the results you are seeing using >>>:
{panel}
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
*>>> The engine is not firing the rule for interval 103 because if was already
fired in the previous scenario and the IntervalRequirement fact did not change.*
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
*>>> The engine is not firing the rule for interval 103 because if was already
fired in the first scenario and the IntervalRequirement fact did not change.*
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
{panel}
The log on the last scenario for me correctly shows:
{panel}
Update #5:ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101
ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 103, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100,
staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s)
{panel}
I am testing this against 5.4 and 5.5 HEAD as of today.
I am closing this ticket as not a bug. Feel free to reopen the ticket if you still see a
problem.
was (Author: tirelli):
My understanding is that this test is wrong. The behavior of the engine is correct. I
will comment inline on the results you are seeing using >>>:
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
>> The engine is not firing the rule for interval 103 because if
was already fired in the previous scenario and the IntervalRequirement fact did not
change.
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
>> The engine is not firing the rule for interval 103 because if
was already fired in the first scenario and the IntervalRequirement fact did not change.
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
The log on the last scenario for me correctly shows:
Update #5:ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101
ShiftAssignment set from 100 to 101
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 103, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 102, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementNotCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 101, staffingRequired:
2
intervalRequirementPartiallyCovered -> IntervalRequirement: interval: 100,
staffingRequired: 2 covered by 1 ShiftAssignment(s)
I am testing this against 5.4 and 5.5 HEAD as of today.
I am closing this ticket as not a bug. Feel free to reopen the ticket if you still see a
problem.
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
Fix For: 5.4.0.Final, 5.5.0.Beta1
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11:27 a.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Edson Tirelli resolved JBRULES-3320.
------------------------------------
Fix Version/s: 5.4.0.Final
5.5.0.Beta1
Resolution: Rejected
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
Fix For: 5.4.0.Final, 5.5.0.Beta1
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
11:27 a.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Edson Tirelli closed JBRULES-3320.
----------------------------------
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
Fix For: 5.4.0.Final, 5.5.0.Beta1
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12:18 p.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
guy ramirez commented on JBRULES-3320:
--------------------------------------
Does it mean that a fact update is then NOT equivalent to a retract/insert?
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
Fix For: 5.4.0.Final, 5.5.0.Beta1
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
12:32 p.m.
[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3320?page=com.atlassian.jira.plug...
]
Edson Tirelli commented on JBRULES-3320:
----------------------------------------
It is not, as drools implements "true modify". But if you are asking about
scenario #2, the update on ShiftAssignment has the same result of retract+assert.
Please note that if you call update on IntervalRequirement 103, it will of course re-fire
the first rule, but the update is being called on ShiftAssignment, and it is not part of
the match for IntervalRequirement 103 in the first rule.
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
Fix For: 5.4.0.Final, 5.5.0.Beta1
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.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.jboss.org/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
5127
days inactive
5251
days old
10 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Edson Tirelli (JIRA) -
Geoffrey De Smet (JIRA)
-
guy ramirez (Created) (JIRA)
-
guy ramirez (JIRA)
-
Mark Proctor (JIRA)