Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem?

T'is done Edson, http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-744 Although I couldn't assign it to you. -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 20 March 2007 12:12 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? Mike, May I ask you please to open a JIRA for that, attaching your sample code? Also, either assign the ticket for me or let me know the ticket number after you open it. I will take a detailed look. Thank you, Edson Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: >Hi Edson, > >I've tested branch in SVN but have to report that the following does > > not >work as expected:- > >** Java > >Machine mt1=new Machine(); >mt1.setDescription("Test Machine"); >Attribute at1=new Attribute("TEST1", 5); >Attribute at2=new Attribute("TEST2", 25); >mt1.addAttribute(at1); // <-- A machine contains an ArrayList of >Attributes >mt1.addAttribute(at2); // <-- A machine contains an ArrayList of >Attributes >wm.assertObject(mt1); >wm.assertObject(at1); >wm.assertObject(at2); > >** Rules > >rule "Test 1a" // <-- Works OK >when > $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" ) >then > System.out.println("DEBUG---> Adding new Attribute(\"TEST3\") to >Machine"); > Attribute a = new Attribute("TEST3", 100); > $m.addAttribute(a); > assertLogical(a); >end > >rule "Test 1b" // <-- Does not activate >when > $a : Attribute ( name == "TEST3" ) > $m : Machine ( attributesList contains $a ) >then > System.out.println("DEBUG---> Found machine with new >Attribute"); >End > >The following rule does however work which suggests a problem with >"contains"(?):- > >rule "Test 1c" // <-- Does activate >when > $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" ) > $a1 : Attribute ( name == "TEST1", parent == $m ) > $a2 : Attribute ( name == "TEST2", parent == $m ) > $a3 : Attribute ( name == "TEST3", parent == $m ) >then > System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $m.toString()); > System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a1.toString()); > System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a2.toString()); >end > >Also, the following type of syntax appears problematic:- > >rule "Test 2" >when > $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" ) > $a1 : Attribute ( name == "TEST1", parent == $m ) > $a2 : Attribute ( name == "TEST2", parent == $m ) >then > System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $m.toString()); > System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a1.toString()); > System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a2.toString()); >End > >This particular example works OK (all facts asserted outside of rules) >however this (real life) example does not:- > >rule "Material - Lock Pressure Modifier" >salience 849 >when > MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) > $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_PROCESS_TOTAL_XY, >$txy : number ) > $a2 : Attribute ( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent == > > $m >) >then > Attribute a = new >Attribute(Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, m); > assertLogical(a); > $m.addAttribute(a); >end > >rule "Material - Clamping Force" >salience 848 >when > MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) > $a1 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_PROCESS_TOTAL_XY, >$txy : number ) // <-- > > Same as >above > $a2 : Attribute( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent == > > $m >) // <-- Same as above >//(a) $a3 : Attribute( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number, >parent == $m ) // <-- Asserted above >//(b) $a3 : Attribute( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number ) >then > System.out.println("DEBUG--->" + $a2.getParent()); > System.out.println("DEBUG--->" + $a3.getParent()); >end > >If line "//(a)" is used the rule does not fire; if rule "//(b)" is used >instead (i.e. the RHS does not check the "parent" property) the rule >triggers. However the two debug lines show "$a2.getParent()" and >"$a3.getParent()" point to the same object - one "parent == $m" worked >the other (asserted by a rule) does not appear to work. > >Thanks, > >Mike > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anstis, Michael (M.) >Sent: 15 March 2007 12:34 >To: 'Rules Users List' >Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? > >Hi Edson, > >Don't worry Edson - you have enough to do to excuse missing a question. > >I don't want to put the check into the consequence - oh no, but as > > given >by my examples the rule "A" never fires when its in the LHS. I wanted > > to >check my understanding that rule "A" should work the same as rule "B" >with the difference being that the condition is handled by the RETE >network and not some hacky code in the RHS. I am planning on checking >both in trunk tonight - unfortunately family matters mean I can't spend >too much time on the computer in the evenings and I was only able to >play with Maven last night. > >Cheers, > >Mike > > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli >Sent: 15 March 2007 12:08 >To: Rules Users List >Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? > > > Michael, > > Sorry, I missed your previous message... why are you moving the > > check >into the consequence? As you already realized, that is not a good >solution... > Did you tried your original rule in trunk? Bug is still there? > > []s > Edson > >Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: > > > > > >>Sorry to push Edson, >> >>The performance degradation from having the "parental check" in the >> >> RHS >>versus the LHS is (expectedly) terrific. We have thousands of >>"attributes" relating to different parent objects and having the rule >>activate for every combination is causing performance problems. Moving >>the RHS into a LHS "eval" would be no better either. >> >>On a different matter, I have successfully installed the source with >>Maven (thanks Mark) and can debug trunk in Eclipse at home! >> >>With kind regards, >> >>Mike >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Anstis, Michael (M.) >>Sent: 14 March 2007 12:28 >>To: 'Rules Users List' >>Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? >> >>OK, Edson, I will try to check it out (I'm having problems accessing >>subversion from work so will try from home). >> >>Whilst trying to implement a workaround though I may have discovered >>another problem (which might have been fixed too):- >> >>rule "A" >>when >> MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) >> $a2 : Attribute( name == >>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent == >> >> >> >> >$m > > > > >>) >> $a3 : Attribute( name == >>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number, >>parent == $m ) >>then >> System.out.println("Rule A"); //<-- Never fires >>end >> >>rule "B" >>when >> MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) >> $a2 : Attribute( name == >>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number ) >> $a3 : Attribute( name == >>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number ) >>Then >> if($a2.getParent() == $m && $a3.getParent() == $m) { >> System.out.println("Rule B"); //<-- Fires >> } >>end >> >>If the check for "parent" being equal across $m, $a2 and $a3 is in the >>LHS the rule doesn't activate. However if check is in the RHS the rule >>is OK. >> >>Any thoughts or views (Edson)? >> >>Thanks, >> >>Mike >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >>[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson >> >> Tirelli >>Sent: 13 March 2007 22:57 >>To: Rules Users List >>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? >> >> >> Mike, >> >> Yes, that is a "shadow fact unwanted side-effect" (nice name for a >>bug hm? :) ), but I remember fixing something similar as part of >> >> >> >> >another > > > > >>ticket I was working on. Is it possible for you to verify if the >> >> >> >> >problem > > > > >>is happening in trunk? >> If it is still hapenning, let me know and I will fix it. >> >> Thank you, >> Edson >> >>Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>Hi, >>> >>>I am running 3.1-M1 and have (by way of example) two simple rules; A >>>and B as follows:- >>> >>> *rule* "A" >>> *when* >>> $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_A, $pa : >>> number ) >>> $a2 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_B, $nc : >>> number ) >>> $p : Process ( attributesList* contains* $a1, >>> attributesList* contains* $a2 ) >>> *then* >>> * double* txy = doSomeMaths($pa, $nc, $p); >>> Attribute a =* new* Attribute(Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>txy); >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> $p.addAttribute(a); >>> * assertLogical*(a); >>> * modify*($p); >>> System.out.println("Rule 'A' fired"); >>> *end* >>> >>> *rule* "B" >>> *when* >>> $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C, $txy : >>> number) >>> $p : Process( attributesList* contains* $a1 ) >>> // <-- Line causing rule not to activate >>> >>> *then* >>> * double* m = doSomeMoreMaths($txy, $p); >>> System.out.println("Rule 'B' fired"); >>> *end* >>> >>>Process exposes an ArrayList of Attribute objects (each having a >>>name\value pair). >>> >>>When the content of the ArrayList held by Process is added to (Rule >>>'A') the next rule (Rule 'B') is not being activated. >>> >>>Can anybody provide any insight into how best a workaround can be >>>engineered? >>> >>>With kind regards, >>> >>>Mike >>> >>>--------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> - >>> >>> >>> >>> >- > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>- >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>rules-users mailing list &gt;&gt;&gt;rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > >