11:05 a.m.
Hello all,
I have a single DSL phrase that performs 2 actions, delimited by a
semicolon. This compiles and works fine under Eclipse. However, when I
uploaded the same DSL to the BRMS and rewrote the same rule that uses
this phrase, rule validation failed:
Unable to build expression for 'consequence': Failed to compile: 1
compilation error(s) ' modify(svc) { addBenefit( [...] ) }; insert(new
Decision( [...] )); '
( "[ ... ]" is sanitized for our protection )
The DSL phrase:
[consequence][]Do {p1} to {p2};=modify(svc) { addBenefit("{p1}") };
insert(new Decision(c, "{p2}"));
Note that in our DSL the RHS of the phrase does not include a line
break.
Is this a bug? Or are we just doing something wrong? Or can't the BRMS
handle this (again, Eclipse can)?
Any help is greatly appreciated.
Cheers,
Ben
11:16 a.m.
Following up on the below,
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:05 -0400, Benjamin J McMillan wrote:
I have a single DSL phrase that performs 2 actions, delimited by a
semicolon. This compiles and works fine under Eclipse. However, when I
uploaded the same DSL to the BRMS and rewrote the same rule that uses
this phrase, rule validation failed:
I should have mentioned the above failed when using the guided editor
inside the BRMS. I just tested the raw/text editor in the BRMS for the
same rule (which ostensibly produced the same source), and it worked.
So, it seems this only affects the BRMS' guided rule editor.
Also, this is with version 4.0.5 .
Thanks again,
Ben
10:16 a.m.
Yet another follow up to below,
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:16 -0400, Benjamin J McMillan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:05 -0400, Benjamin J McMillan wrote:
> I have a single DSL phrase that performs 2 actions, delimited by a
> semicolon. This compiles and works fine under Eclipse. However, when I
> uploaded the same DSL to the BRMS and rewrote the same rule that uses
> this phrase, rule validation failed:
So, it seems this only affects the BRMS' guided rule editor.
I apologize for not narrowing this down further before posting last
time. I did some more testing and discovered that the issue was not
multiple actions but rather the way we were using "modify" inside the
DSL (still, using the guided editor).
Apparently, the guided editor's validator only accepts MVEL (bean) style
assignments within a modify statement (ie, location = "foo" ->
setLocation("foo")) AND NOT either a setter or any other public method
(ie, setLocation("foo") or addLocation("foo","bar")).
The text based (DSL assisted) editor successfully validates the java
style DSL phrase as used in the same rule.
My initial post includes the DSL phrase in question.
Thanks,
Ben
2:42 p.m.
Sorry for all the emails. We figured it out.
It turns out that the guided editor in the BRMS forces the MVEL dialect
by default. However, if you explicitly set the dialect to java in the
options, it will work (validate). This allows us to call functions in
the DSL phrases rather than being limited to getters/setters via MVEL.
Cheers,
(a much happier) Ben
On Wed, 2008-05-14 at 11:16 -0400, Benjamin J McMillan wrote:
On Tue, 2008-05-13 at 12:16 -0400, Benjamin J McMillan wrote:
> So, it seems this only affects the BRMS' guided rule editor.
Apparently, the guided editor's validator only accepts MVEL (bean) style
The text based (DSL assisted) editor successfully validates the java
style DSL phrase as used in the same rule.
6040
days inactive
6041
days old
3 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Benjamin J McMillan