Mike,
Thanks for the detail explanation.
I found that the order of the conditions were changed again after I added two more
conditions to the same package I used last time.
I added default value to the first two conditions. Added the fifth condition by using the
binding name created for the first condition.Add the sixth condition by using the binding
name created for the second condition. After I import the data to 5.3 the fifth condition
became the second and the sixth
condition became the fourth. Also the default value for the first and second conditions
are not listed in the rule source in 5.3. Could you please take a look? I attach the
modified repository in the email.
Thanks a lot,
Jian
________________________________
From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
To: drools-user <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:59 PM
Subject: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
I suspect ConsumerAccountAssociationFact.hasAnyAccountClosed is a boolean.
In 5.3 we handle data-types better than 5.0, so String, Numbers, Dates are Booleans have
editors appropriate for the data-type and the resulting DRL only escapes values with
quotation marks where needed (i.e. Strings and Dates). Boolean's in the table are now
shown as Checkboxes. If the value is "true" it is ticked, if the value is
"false" the checkbox is not ticked.
I don't therefore believe there is any problem.
On 10 February 2012 16:35, jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Mike,
Thanks for the quick response. I downloaded the war and tested the fix. The order of the
conditions are correct now. There is still a small problem in the last condition.
In Drools 5.0 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact(
hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ).
In Drools 5.3 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact(
hasAnyAccountClosed == false ). It displays a square check box in the cell.
Could you please take a look?
Thanks,
Jian
________________________________
From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
To: jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List
<rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
You can get a build containing the fix from Nexus:
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/index.html#nexus-search;gav~org.drools...
2012/2/8 jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
Mike,
>
>
>Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3?
>
>
>Thanks,
>Jian
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
>To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:17 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
>
>
>
>The problem has existed since 5.2 and would potentially affect loading any earlier
version.
>Prior to 5.2 the object model used by the guided decision table did not hold a Pattern
to which individual condition columns are bound.
>The conversion code groups individual condition columns into the appropriate group and
moves the underlying column data accordingly (as there was no guarantee columns with the
same bound name were consecutive).
>There was a problem with the creation and insertion of the new Pattern objects that
relied upon the order of entries in a HashMap being consistent. This has now changed.
>I know others have been using the new guided decision table with old repositories
without problem and our unit tests did not detect the problem either.
>AFAIK this is the first report of any such issue since the release of 5.2's betas,
however I would be wrong to say there is no risk.
>sent on the move
>On 8 Feb 2012 01:22, "vadlam" <sreeram.vadlamudi(a)wellsfargo.com>
wrote:
>
>does this issue happen for any previous version of Guvnor data such as 5.0
>>or 5.1 or 5.2 exported and imported into a Guvnor 5.3 repository ?
>>
>>does this mean, we cannot rely on 5.3.0 version of Guvnor code when
>>migrating data from a previous version and should rather apply the fix ?
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Migrating-repository-data-f...
>>Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
>>_______________________________________________
>>rules-users mailing list
>>rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users