That fact makes me think about that the problem is in the number of
patterns and not the pattern itself.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Mauricio Salatino <salaboy(a)gmail.com>wrote:
But wait a second..
If you comment out another and inside the rule it will also work.. that
means that it's not the pattern inside the last AND
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Mario Fusco <mario.fusco(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> Mauricio,
>
> I am seeing exactly what you wrote.
> What I have found until now is that the harming pattern is inside the
> last and block (the one starting at line 218 of the single big rule and
> ending at 235), indeed if you comment away that block the test succeeds.
>
> I'll keep you updated on my further findings.
>
> Mario
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mauricio Salatino <salaboy(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Mario, I was looking at that problem too.
>> Notice that if you remove some of the ANDs, the rule will work without
>> throwing the null pointer exception.
>> Which makes me think that it could be related with the number of
>> declarations or how the patterns are being arranged for that specific case.
>> The null pointer is raised when a hashcode is being calculated for a
>> declaration that doesn't have an object assigned, for some reason it's
not
>> there.
>> One of the tests shows how we have splitted the rule in multiple rules
>> showing that each individual group of patterns is correct.. which make me
>> think again about the number of patterns and/or declarations can be causing
>> the issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Keep us posted about your findings.. we can probably learn how to solve
>> these problems and stop bothering you :)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Mario Fusco <mario.fusco(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I am going to give a look at it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Esteban Aliverti <
>>> esteban.aliverti(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>> I'm having a NPE in one of the rules I'm using and I can't
find the
>>>> cause.
>>>> I'm attaching a test project that shows the problem.
>>>> Basically, I have 1 rule that contains some nested 'ands' and
'ors'
>>>> patterns. The rule is being auto-generated from some data, that is why
it
>>>> has this strange structure.
>>>> We tried to refactor the rule by separating it in different
>>>> rules, extract some common factors, etc. and in some cases it works.
>>>> So I'm not sure whether the original rule is wrong or if I'm
hitting a
>>>> bug in Drools.
>>>> Inside the test project you can find the original rule
>>>> (SimpleHighRiskSepsis.drl) and all the other refactors we did.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>>>>
>>>> Esteban Aliverti
>>>> - Developer @
http://www.plugtree.com
>>>> - Blog @
http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> - MyJourney @
http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>> - Co-Founder @
http://www.jugargentina.org
>> - Co-Founder @
http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>
>> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-dev mailing list
>> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>
--
- MyJourney @
http://salaboy.wordpress.com
- Co-Founder @
http://www.jugargentina.org
- Co-Founder @
http://www.jbug.com.ar
- Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -