target directory checked in?
by Laird Nelson
I just did a git pull on the drools repositories and noticed that at least
one of the projects has the target directory checked in. Was this
intentional?
My apologies if this is a known issue or deliberate. It just struck me as
odd, that's all.
Arbitrary excerpt:
create mode 100644
drools-ruleml/target/test-classes/ruleml/translator/TestDataModel$Sell.class
create mode 100644
drools-ruleml/target/test-classes/ruleml/translator/TestDataModel.class
create mode 100644
drools-ruleml/target/test-classes/ruleml/translator/TestDrools2RuleML.class
create mode 100644
drools-ruleml/target/test-classes/ruleml/translator/TestRuleML2Drools.class
create mode 100644
drools-ruleml/target/test-classes/ruleml/translator/Util.class
Best,
Laird
--
http://about.me/lairdnelson
14 years, 7 months
This (ordered) record validation approach is working
by ronalbury
I didn't get any feedback when I posted earlier today, so I went ahead and
implemented what I thought would work ... and I figured I should share it
here since it seems to be working pretty well.
I created a Rule Flow as follows:
A Rule-Flow-Group that validates the arrays. Unfortunately I sometimes
get multiple related arrays of records instead of a single array of records.
I confirm that records with mandatory values have arrays with at least one
element, and confirm that the related arrays are of equal length. Errors
are logged.
A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that manages inserts. The data actually
comes to me as one data structure comprised of sub-records of various types,
and I have DRL files for each record type. Some of the sub-records are
optional, and since subsequent rules would erroneously flag empty
sub-records as errors I have rules here which only allow optional records
containing values to be inserted into the system. I am currently using
for-loops in the THEN section of some rules to deal with the array problem
and would like to know if there is a better way. No errors are generated
here.
A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that validates data. The data is all sent
to me as Strings, even though many of the values are numbers, dates, etc.
This Rule-Flow group tests the various fields using regular expressions, and
if a regular expression fails then the record is flagged as having an error.
Optional fields are dealt with by the regular expression allowing a blank.
Errors are logged.
A Diverging Gateway that splits the data into two ... records without
validation errors are allowed to progress to the value-checking Rule-Flow
group ... those with errors have nothing more done to them. I realize that
I could, for instance, let records with bogus numbers thru as long as my
string-to-integer routine is robust, however I don't want to flag the same
record multiple times (once by reg-ex and then again by the next
Rule-Flow-Group).
A subsequent Rule-Flow-Group that checks the values and ranges of the
numbers, dates, etc, and does other types of validation (e.g. if fieldA has
a value greater than 20 then fieldB must be set to "XYZ"). Errors are
logged.
This Rule-Flow approach currently seems to be solving all of my problems,
and it allows me to keep the rules simple and well structured such that most
of them are reusable in other parts of our system.
I'm interested in getting feedback on this approach ... it seems to be
working pretty well for me. It allows me to deal with ordering issues and
many of the if/else issues, while keeping the rules simple enough for our
non-technical analysts to review without needing a developer to sit next to
them.
I realize this is a pretty mundane application for a powerful rules system,
but it seems like a good fit nonetheless.
Thanks
Ron
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/This-ordered-record-validation-approach...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
14 years, 7 months
guvnor deploy on AS7 times out
by rquinn
Deploying govnor-5.3.0.Final-jboss-as-7.0.war (renamed as guvnor.war) on
jboss-as-7.1.0.Beta1b standalone on Windows XP w/java build 1.6.0_29-b11.
First attempt was dropping the war into deployments
it seems to start fine
- I do get some WARN ... does not point to a valid jar for a Class-Path
reference
- and a couple of EJB get deployed
but ultimately I get - JBAS015052: Did not receive a response to the
deployment operation within the allowed timeout period [60 seconds]. Check
the server configuration file and the server logs to find more about the
status of the deployment.
Second attempt was via the content deployer in admin console but that even
less successful... content was deployed but "enable" produces no results,
error message or anything.
any help appreciated... i've seen another posting in the forum regarding
problems with guvnor deployments and AS7 but that was 5.2 and symptoms were
different. response on that was an indication that 5.4 would refactor the
seam impl and solve some issues.
any help appreciated
thanx
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/guvnor-deploy-on-AS7-times-out-tp356946...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
14 years, 7 months
Is this an appropriate approach
by ronalbury
The issue I have been struggling with is ordering rule evaluation ... which I
realize violates one of the theoretical underpinnings of a rules system. I
receive all String data. I wanted to test if the data was well formed (via
regular expressions) prior to testing the semantic values stored in the data
(e.g. numbers, etc).
However, I woke up this morning, smacking my forehead, wondering why I
didn't think of this earlier. Is there any reason I shouldn't run the rules
engine twice - once with a knowledge base containing the regular
expressions, and then (if it passes) run it through a different knowledge
base with the semantic evaluations?
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Is-this-an-appropriate-approach-tp35678...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
14 years, 7 months
Planner 5.3.Final - "presumedScore is corrupted" when using "update" on the rules working memory
by guyramirez
I am looking into Planner for a schedule assignment business case.
I created a move factory, got the local search phase set up and quicly ran
into a "presumedScore is corrupted because it is not the realScore" error.
As a work around, I changed my Move::doMove(..) implementation to "retract"
then "insert" rather than "update" the new updated planning entity and the
issue went away.
Then I worked on setting a construction heuristic and I again ran into the
same error. By applying a local code patch to the
PlanningValueWalker::changeWorkingValue(..) method to also "retract" and
"insert" rather than "update" also fixed the issue.
I also tried to correctly implement the hashCode() and equals(..) methods on
my planning entity (as mentioned in Drools Expert documentation) as well as
use the default implementation of those methods (as in the nurse rostering
example) with the same unsuccessful results.
I must mention than I am able to run the nurse rostering example without any
issues.
Could someone maybe point me to the right direction on why "update" does not
work for me? I can provide detailed information if needed.
Thanks,
Guy
--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Planner-5-3-Final-presumedScore-is-corr...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
14 years, 7 months
