Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 18:50:55 +0200 From: Mats Erik Andersson&lt;mats.andersson(a)gisladisker.se&gt; Subject: [rules-dev] drools-compiler: Inconsistent test rules in DRL and in XML. To:rules-dev@lists.jboss.org Message-ID:<20110824165055.GB3443@mea.homelinux.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Dear all, I am working on the XML Schema (which needs repairing) and the XML formulated rules. In doing so I have stumbled across a discrepancy between the two rule formulations drools-compiler/src/test/resources/org/drools/compiler/xml/\ rules/test_ParseRule.{drl,xml} which I dare claim to be in error, unless they are ment to express different rules! The left-hand side in "test_ParseRule.drl" expresses the logic foo2 : Bar( ... ) # implicit AND not( ... ) # implicit AND foo3 : Bar( ... ) or foo4 : Bar( ... ) or foo5 : Bar( ... ) or foo6 : Bar( ... ) or Baz() Observe that foo3 up to foo6 and Baz are connected using OR connectives of constant precedence. Still, observing this, the expected counterpart test_ParseRule.xml of XML form expresses <pattern identifier="foo2" ...> ...</pattern> <!-- implicit AND --> <not> ...</not> <!-- implicit AND --> <or-conditional-element> <pattern identifier="foo3" ...> ...</pattern> <pattern identifier="foo4" ...> ...</pattern> </or-conditional.element> <!-- implicit AND --> <pattern identifier="foo5" ...> ...</pattern> <!-- implicit AND --> <pattern identifier="foo6" ...> ...</pattern> <!-- implicit AND --> <pattern identifier="foo7" ...> ...</pattern> <!-- implicit AND --> <pattern object-type="Baz" /> Hence foo5, foo6, foo6 and Baz have been ejected from the OR-clause stipulated in the DRL file, instead being part of the outer AND-clause. My expectation is that either DRL or XML file be generated after parsing from the other one, but the logical models being different, I conclude one of the files to be in error. Depending on hard-coded precedence model between AND and OR, the "or-conditional-element" should encompass only foo3, or the (the generally expected) all of "foo#". To single out only foo3 and foo4 contradicts the mathematical logic behind the contructs. Best regards, Mats Andersson