3:22 a.m.
Hi,
Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch, however it
doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the rule's action part, the
Exception will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this will make the
rule engine stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be caught
externally, the system can be protected from interrupting Exception.
try {
_log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
session.fireAllRules();
} catch (Exception e) {
_log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
}
Thanks,
Yang
5:58 a.m.
Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current session is
considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside of the
actual consequence.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Hi,
Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch, however
it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the rule's action
part, the Exception will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this
will make the rule engine stop working -- the try...catch outside
doesn't help anything.
If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be caught
externally, the system can be protected from interrupting Exception.
try {
_log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
session.fireAllRules();
} catch (Exception e) {
_log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
}
Thanks,
Yang
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
10:15 a.m.
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence part of rule
is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in run-time which are
hard to predict, especially when a complex action or logic will be executed
as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the rule that
there is something wrong during the rule firing process, then and he can do
something, e.g. create a new session. Also it should enable the rule
firer to catch these exceptions and do the clean up work silently -- instead
of leaving these things on the stderr even cannot be seen in the logs. This
will make the program depending on the JBoss Rules to be more robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do this job,
can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current session is
considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside of the actual
consequence.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Hi,
Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch, however it
doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the rule's action part, the
Exception will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this will make the
rule engine stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be caught
externally, the system can be protected from interrupting Exception.
try {
_log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
session.fireAllRules();
} catch (Exception e) {
_log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
}
Thanks,
Yang
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing
listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
10:39 a.m.
For what it's worth I think this would be a good idea too.
Perhaps the default ASM wrapper around the RHS could use a try...catch
block and log any exceptions of a rules' activation in a (drools)
accessible log? Heck you could even allow certain accepted exceptions to
be defined as a property of the rule; and any other non-defined
exception types cause the session to become invalidated. If we're ever
to let "the business" define rules we need to accept they might make
mistakes that we're better off capturing and report back than invalidate
the whole session. Why should a whole session be invalidated because a
single rule activation failed anyway?
With kind regards,
Mike
________________________________
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Yang Song
Sent: 24 August 2007 16:16
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when firing
rules
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes
sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence
part of rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in
run-time which are hard to predict, especially when a complex action or
logic will be executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires
the rule that there is something wrong during the rule firing process,
then and he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it should
enable the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the clean up work
silently -- instead of leaving these things on the stderr even cannot be
seen in the logs. This will make the program depending on the JBoss
Rules to be more robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do
this job, can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current
session is considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside
of the actual consequence.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Hi,
Anyone knows how to catch the exception when
firing the rules?
I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method
using try...catch, however it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code
in the rule's action part, the Exception will be thrown and printed to
the stderr, and this will make the rule engine stop working -- the
try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
If the exception thrown from the rule's action
part can be caught externally, the system can be protected from
interrupting Exception.
try {
_log.debug("Firing rules in : " +
getName());
session.fireAllRules();
} catch (Exception e) {
_log.info("Error when firing rules: ",
e);
}
Thanks,
Yang
________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
11:13 a.m.
I need to say I like both your arguments, Michael and Yang. The
solution, though, will require investigation and a lot of tests. May I ask
you please to open a feature request in JIRA adding your comments?
Thanks,
Edson
2007/8/24, Anstis, Michael (M.) <manstis1(a)ford.com>:
For what it's worth I think this would be a good idea too.
Perhaps the default ASM wrapper around the RHS could use a try...catch
block and log any exceptions of a rules' activation in a (drools) accessible
log? Heck you could even allow certain accepted exceptions to be defined as
a property of the rule; and any other non-defined exception types cause the
session to become invalidated. If we're ever to let "the business" define
rules we need to accept they might make mistakes that we're better off
capturing and report back than invalidate the whole session. Why should a
whole session be invalidated because a single rule activation failed anyway?
With kind regards,
Mike
------------------------------
*From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:
rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Yang Song
*Sent:* 24 August 2007 16:16
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when firing rules
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence part of
rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in run-time which
are hard to predict, especially when a complex action or logic will be
executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the rule
that there is something wrong during the rule firing process, then and
he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it should enable
the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the clean up work silently
-- instead of leaving these things on the stderr even cannot be seen in the
logs. This will make the program depending on the JBoss Rules to be more
robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do this job,
can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
>
> Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current session is
> considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside of the actual
> consequence.
>
> Mark
> Yang Song wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
>
> I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch, however
> it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the rule's action part, the
> Exception will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this will make the
> rule engine stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
>
> If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be caught
> externally, the system can be protected from interrupting Exception.
>
> try {
> _log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
>
> session.fireAllRules();
>
> } catch (Exception e) {
> _log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
7:15 p.m.
ok I have added a ConsequenceExceptionHandler to RuleBaseConfiguration,
default just wraps and re-throws as a runtime exception. You can
override this to provide a custom consequence exception handler. But do
be aware that if you swallow the working memory integrity may be
invalid, if the error happened during a working memory action.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
For what it's worth I think this would be a good idea too.
Perhaps the default ASM wrapper around the RHS could use a try...catch
block and log any exceptions of a rules' activation in a (drools)
accessible log? Heck you could even allow certain accepted exceptions
to be defined as a property of the rule; and any other non-defined
exception types cause the session to become invalidated. If we're ever
to let "the business" define rules we need to accept they might make
mistakes that we're better off capturing and report back than
invalidate the whole session. Why should a whole session be
invalidated because a single rule activation failed anyway?
With kind regards,
Mike
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Yang Song
*Sent:* 24 August 2007 16:16
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when firing rules
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence
part of rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in
run-time which are hard to predict, especially when a complex
action or logic will be executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the
rule that there is something wrong during the rule firing process,
then and he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it
should enable the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the
clean up work silently -- instead of leaving these things on the
stderr even cannot be seen in the logs. This will make the program
depending on the JBoss Rules to be more robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do
this job, can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, *Mark Proctor* <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
<mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current
session is considered invalid. You'll need to add the try
catch inside of the actual consequence.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
>
> I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using
> try...catch, however it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad
> code in the rule's action part, the Exception will be thrown
> and printed to the stderr, and this will make the rule engine
> stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
>
> If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be
> caught externally, the system can be protected from
> interrupting Exception.
>
> try {
> _log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
>
> session.fireAllRules();
>
> } catch (Exception e) {
> _log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
7:33 p.m.
Here is the unit test showing how it works, this uses the programmatic
api, you can also use the drools.consequenceExceptionHandler property.
This will be in the 4.0.1 release, which is out this monday.
http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBRULES-1123
public void testCustomConsequenceException() throws Exception {
final PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl( new InputStreamReader(
getClass().getResourceAsStream( "test_ConsequenceException.drl" ) ) );
final Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration();
CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler handler = new
CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler();
conf.setConsequenceExceptionHandler( handler );
final RuleBase ruleBase = getRuleBase(conf);
ruleBase.addPackage( pkg );
final WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newStatefulSession();
final Cheese brie = new Cheese( "brie",
12 );
workingMemory.insert( brie );
workingMemory.fireAllRules();
assertTrue( handler.isCalled() );
}
public static class CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler implements
ConsequenceExceptionHandler {
private boolean called;
public void handleException(Activation activation,
WorkingMemory workingMemory,
Exception exception) {
this.called = true;
}
public boolean isCalled() {
return this.called;
}
}
Mark
Mark Proctor wrote:
ok I have added a ConsequenceExceptionHandler to
RuleBaseConfiguration, default just wraps and re-throws as a runtime
exception. You can override this to provide a custom consequence
exception handler. But do be aware that if you swallow the working
memory integrity may be invalid, if the error happened during a
working memory action.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
> For what it's worth I think this would be a good idea too.
>
> Perhaps the default ASM wrapper around the RHS could use a
> try...catch block and log any exceptions of a rules' activation in a
> (drools) accessible log? Heck you could even allow certain accepted
> exceptions to be defined as a property of the rule; and any other
> non-defined exception types cause the session to become invalidated.
> If we're ever to let "the business" define rules we need to accept
> they might make mistakes that we're better off capturing and report
> back than invalidate the whole session. Why should a whole session be
> invalidated because a single rule activation failed anyway?
>
> With kind regards,
>
> Mike
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Yang Song
> *Sent:* 24 August 2007 16:16
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when firing
> rules
>
> Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
>
> Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence
> part of rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening
> in run-time which are hard to predict, especially when a complex
> action or logic will be executed as the concequece.
>
> There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires
> the rule that there is something wrong during the rule firing
> process, then and he can do something, e.g. create a new session.
> Also it should enable the rule firer to catch these exceptions
> and do the clean up work silently -- instead of leaving these
> things on the stderr even cannot be seen in the logs. This will
> make the program depending on the JBoss Rules to be more robust.
>
> What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do
> this job, can you please let me know?
>
> Thanks again,
> Yang
>
>
> On 8/24/07, *Mark Proctor* <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
> <mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
>
> Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current
> session is considered invalid. You'll need to add the try
> catch inside of the actual consequence.
>
> Mark
> Yang Song wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
>>
>> I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using
>> try...catch, however it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad
>> code in the rule's action part, the Exception will be thrown
>> and printed to the stderr, and this will make the rule
>> engine stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help
>> anything.
>>
>> If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be
>> caught externally, the system can be protected from
>> interrupting Exception.
>>
>> try {
>> _log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
>>
>> session.fireAllRules();
>>
>> } catch (Exception e) {
>> _log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
>> }
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yang
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
11:15 p.m.
Mark, Michael, Edson and all,
Thanks very much for participating into this discussion. I am so glad to see
that the response has quickly been turned out into an output. Really
appreciate your help, Mark.
Sorry may be a liittle too aggressive, but here comes another thought of
mine: if we can have the RHS to have exception handler, why not the LHS has
exception handler too? This is sometimes very helpful when someone abuses
eval() in LHS.
Best Regards,
Yang
On 8/25/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
Here is the unit test showing how it works, this uses the programmatic
api, you can also use the drools.consequenceExceptionHandler property.
This will be in the 4.0.1 release, which is out this monday.
http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBRULES-1123
public void testCustomConsequenceException() throws Exception {
final PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl( new InputStreamReader(
getClass().getResourceAsStream( "test_ConsequenceException.drl" ) ) );
final Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration();
CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler handler = new
CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler();
conf.setConsequenceExceptionHandler( handler );
final RuleBase ruleBase = getRuleBase(conf);
ruleBase.addPackage( pkg );
final WorkingMemory workingMemory = ruleBase.newStatefulSession();
final Cheese brie = new Cheese( "brie",
12 );
workingMemory.insert( brie );
workingMemory.fireAllRules();
assertTrue( handler.isCalled() );
}
public static class CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler implements
ConsequenceExceptionHandler {
private boolean called;
public void handleException(Activation activation,
WorkingMemory workingMemory,
Exception exception) {
this.called = true;
}
public boolean isCalled() {
return this.called;
}
}
Mark
Mark Proctor wrote:
ok I have added a ConsequenceExceptionHandler to RuleBaseConfiguration,
default just wraps and re-throws as a runtime exception. You can override
this to provide a custom consequence exception handler. But do be aware that
if you swallow the working memory integrity may be invalid, if the error
happened during a working memory action.
Mark
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
For what it's worth I think this would be a good idea too.
Perhaps the default ASM wrapper around the RHS could use a try...catch
block and log any exceptions of a rules' activation in a (drools) accessible
log? Heck you could even allow certain accepted exceptions to be defined as
a property of the rule; and any other non-defined exception types cause the
session to become invalidated. If we're ever to let "the business" define
rules we need to accept they might make mistakes that we're better off
capturing and report back than invalidate the whole session. Why should a
whole session be invalidated because a single rule activation failed anyway?
With kind regards,
Mike
------------------------------
*From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [
mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org<rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org>]
*On Behalf Of *Yang Song
*Sent:* 24 August 2007 16:16
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when firing rules
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence part of
rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in run-time which
are hard to predict, especially when a complex action or logic will be
executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the rule
that there is something wrong during the rule firing process, then and
he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it should enable
the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the clean up work silently
-- instead of leaving these things on the stderr even cannot be seen in the
logs. This will make the program depending on the JBoss Rules to be more
robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do this job,
can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
>
> Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current session is
> considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside of the actual
> consequence.
>
> Mark
> Yang Song wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
>
> I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch, however
> it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the rule's action part, the
> Exception will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this will make the
> rule engine stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
>
> If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be caught
> externally, the system can be protected from interrupting Exception.
>
> try {
> _log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
>
> session.fireAllRules();
>
> } catch (Exception e) {
> _log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing
listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing
listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
7:02 a.m.
There is no way you can recover from an exception on the LHS, so that
makes me reluctant to allow users to create something that swallows
exceptions. If you worried about it, put a try catch around the inserts.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Mark, Michael, Edson and all,
Thanks very much for participating into this discussion. I am so glad
to see that the response has quickly been turned out into an output.
Really appreciate your help, Mark.
Sorry may be a liittle too aggressive, but here comes another thought
of mine: if we can have the RHS to have exception handler, why not the
LHS has exception handler too? This is sometimes very helpful when
someone abuses eval() in LHS.
Best Regards,
Yang
On 8/25/07, *Mark Proctor* <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
<mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
Here is the unit test showing how it works, this uses the
programmatic api, you can also use the
drools.consequenceExceptionHandler property. This will be in the
4.0.1 release, which is out this monday.
http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/JBRULES-1123
public void testCustomConsequenceException() throws Exception
{
final PackageBuilder builder = new PackageBuilder();
builder.addPackageFromDrl( new InputStreamReader(
getClass().getResourceAsStream( "test_ConsequenceException.drl" ) ) );
final Package pkg = builder.getPackage();
RuleBaseConfiguration conf = new RuleBaseConfiguration();
CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler handler = new
CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler();
conf.setConsequenceExceptionHandler ( handler );
final RuleBase ruleBase = getRuleBase(conf);
ruleBase.addPackage( pkg );
final WorkingMemory workingMemory =
ruleBase.newStatefulSession();
final Cheese brie = new Cheese( "brie",
12 );
workingMemory.insert( brie );
workingMemory.fireAllRules();
assertTrue( handler.isCalled() );
}
public static class CustomConsequenceExceptionHandler
implements ConsequenceExceptionHandler {
private boolean called;
public void handleException(Activation activation,
WorkingMemory workingMemory,
Exception exception) {
this.called = true;
}
public boolean isCalled() {
return this.called;
}
}
Mark
Mark Proctor wrote:
> ok I have added a ConsequenceExceptionHandler to
> RuleBaseConfiguration, default just wraps and re-throws as a
> runtime exception. You can override this to provide a custom
> consequence exception handler. But do be aware that if you
> swallow the working memory integrity may be invalid, if the error
> happened during a working memory action.
>
> Mark
> Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
>> For what it's worth I think this would be a good idea too.
>>
>> Perhaps the default ASM wrapper around the RHS could use a
>> try...catch block and log any exceptions of a rules' activation
>> in a (drools) accessible log? Heck you could even allow certain
>> accepted exceptions to be defined as a property of the rule; and
>> any other non-defined exception types cause the session to
>> become invalidated. If we're ever to let "the business" define
>> rules we need to accept they might make mistakes that we're
>> better off capturing and report back than invalidate the whole
>> session. Why should a whole session be invalidated because a
>> single rule activation failed anyway?
>>
>> With kind regards,
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org> [
>> mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of
>> *Yang Song
>> *Sent:* 24 August 2007 16:16
>> *To:* Rules Users List
>> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when
>> firing rules
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it
>> makes sense.
>>
>> Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the
>> consequence part of rule is 100% correct -- there could be
>> errors happening in run-time which are hard to predict,
>> especially when a complex action or logic will be executed
>> as the concequece.
>>
>> There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever
>> fires the rule that there is something wrong during the rule
>> firing process, then and he can do something, e.g. create a
>> new session. Also it should enable the rule firer to catch
>> these exceptions and do the clean up work silently --
>> instead of leaving these things on the stderr even cannot be
>> seen in the logs. This will make the program depending on
>> the JBoss Rules to be more robust.
>>
>> What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to
>> do this job, can you please let me know?
>>
>> Thanks again,
>> Yang
>>
>>
>> On 8/24/07, *Mark Proctor* <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
>> <mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
>>
>> Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current
>> session is considered invalid. You'll need to add the
>> try catch inside of the actual consequence.
>>
>> Mark
>> Yang Song wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the
>>> rules?
>>>
>>> I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using
>>> try...catch, however it doesn't work: when someone
>>> wrote bad code in the rule's action part, the Exception
>>> will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this will
>>> make the rule engine stop working -- the try...catch
>>> outside doesn't help anything.
>>>
>>> If the exception thrown from the rule's action
>>> part can be caught externally, the system can be
>>> protected from interrupting Exception.
>>>
>>> try {
>>> _log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
>>>
>>> session.fireAllRules();
>>>
>>> } catch (Exception e) {
>>> _log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
>>> }
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Yang
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-users mailing list
>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> <https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-users mailing list
>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
<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
9:32 p.m.
New subject: exists...
Folks,
Using 4.0 GA.
Need to have a rule that executes when there exists a Supplier with
business status == active. I am inserting Supplier in working memory.
I did that :
rule #1
when
exists( Supplier( businessStatus.status.isActive == true ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
But it doesn't work....
Although other rules like if there is supplier with name = "SOME NAME" -
they work :
rule #2
when
exists( Supplier( name == "SOME NAME" ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
Any ideas how to make rule #1 work.... ?
Thanks,
Sergey
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this E-mail message from your computer.
9:57 p.m.
New subject: exists...
In stateful session this should work, there is a bug in stateless that
is now fixed (where not/exists is the first CE) and will be in 4.0.1
next week.
Mark
Manukyan, Sergey wrote:
Folks,
Using 4.0 GA.
Need to have a rule that executes when there exists a Supplier with
business status == active. I am inserting Supplier in working memory.
I did that :
rule #1
when
exists( Supplier( businessStatus.status.isActive == true ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
But it doesn't work....
Although other rules like if there is supplier with name = "SOME NAME"
-- they work :
rule #2
when
exists( Supplier( name == "SOME NAME" ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
Any ideas how to make rule #1 work.... ?
Thanks,
Sergey
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this E-mail message from your computer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
6:35 a.m.
New subject: exists...
Manukyan
If it is not firing, it is a bug. Although we fixed several related bugs
for 4.0.1 that shall be out soon.
If you can provide a test case and open a Jira, I can do some further
debugging. Essentially, the difference between the rules is that expression
in the first rule is being converted into an MVEL expression, because of the
nested accessors, while the second is a pure drools expression.
[]s
Edson
2007/8/25, Manukyan, Sergey <SManukyan(a)lear.com>:
Folks,
Using 4.0 GA.
Need to have a rule that executes when there exists a Supplier with
business status == active. I am inserting Supplier in working memory.
I did that :
rule #1
when
exists( Supplier( businessStatus.status.isActive == true ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
But it doesn't work….
Although other rules like if there is supplier with name = "SOME NAME" –
they work :
rule #2
when
exists( Supplier( name == "SOME NAME" ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
Any ideas how to make rule #1 work…. ?
Thanks,
Sergey
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this E-mail message from your computer.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
3:02 a.m.
New subject: exists...
Hey guys,
Is there any timeframe attached to when 4.0.1 will be out? I am working
on a project that is using quite a bit of static functions in the LHS, I
believe there is bugs that was mentioned before with MVEL concerning
this.
Regards
Juan
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: 26 August 2007 01:35 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] exists...
Manukyan
If it is not firing, it is a bug. Although we fixed several related
bugs for 4.0.1 that shall be out soon.
If you can provide a test case and open a Jira, I can do some
further debugging. Essentially, the difference between the rules is that
expression in the first rule is being converted into an MVEL expression,
because of the nested accessors, while the second is a pure drools
expression.
[]s
Edson
2007/8/25, Manukyan, Sergey <SManukyan(a)lear.com>:
Folks,
Using 4.0 GA.
Need to have a rule that executes when there exists a Supplier with
business status == active. I am inserting Supplier in working memory.
I did that :
rule #1
when
exists( Supplier( businessStatus.status.isActive == true ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
But it doesn't work....
Although other rules like if there is supplier with name = "SOME NAME" -
they work :
rule #2
when
exists( Supplier( name == "SOME NAME" ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
Any ideas how to make rule #1 work.... ?
Thanks,
Sergey
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this E-mail message from your computer.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
"Employees of Lonmin Platinum ("Lonplats") are not authorised to conclude
electronic transactions or to enter into electronic agreements on behalf
of Lonplats. Any electronic signature (other than an advanced electronic
signature as defined in the Electronic Communications and Transactions
Act of 2003) added to a data message (such as an email or an attachment
to an (email) ostensibly on behalf of Lonplats by a Lonplats employee shall
not be legally binding on Lonplats and Lonplats shall incur no liability of
any nature whatsoever, directly or indirectly, arising from such act on the
part of it's employee. It is further recorded that nothing (other than an
advanced electronic signature) inserted into any data message
emanating from Lonplats shall be construed as constituting an electronic
signature"
7:22 a.m.
New subject: exists...
Thanks Edson,
Just created JIRA : JBRULES-1136
<http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1136>
Thomas, I did use StatefulSession...
-Sergey
________________________________
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 7:35 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] exists...
Manukyan
If it is not firing, it is a bug. Although we fixed several related
bugs for 4.0.1 that shall be out soon.
If you can provide a test case and open a Jira, I can do some
further debugging. Essentially, the difference between the rules is that
expression in the first rule is being converted into an MVEL expression,
because of the nested accessors, while the second is a pure drools
expression.
[]s
Edson
2007/8/25, Manukyan, Sergey <SManukyan(a)lear.com>:
Folks,
Using 4.0 GA.
Need to have a rule that executes when there exists a Supplier with
business status == active. I am inserting Supplier in working memory.
I did that :
rule #1
when
exists( Supplier( businessStatus.status.isActive == true ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
But it doesn't work....
Although other rules like if there is supplier with name = "SOME NAME" -
they work :
rule #2
when
exists( Supplier( name == "SOME NAME" ) )
then
System.out.println("FOUND!!!!");
End
Any ideas how to make rule #1 work.... ?
Thanks,
Sergey
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this E-mail message from your computer.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
10:50 a.m.
Yang,
If you want to evaluate the remaining rules in the transaction you will
need to catch and handle your errors rather than throw them to the
engine. This is consistent with other products, such as ILog JRules.
If you are catching and handling your own errors, you can always grab
the rule number and exception and add them to your reply.
____________________________________________________
Barry Knapp
Barry.Knapp(a)RailInc.com
919.651.5039
MSN Messenger barry25(a)hotmail.com
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Yang Song
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 11:16 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] How to catch Exceptions when firing rules
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence part of
rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in run-time
which are hard to predict, especially when a complex action or logic
will be executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the rule
that there is something wrong during the rule firing process, then and
he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it should enable
the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the clean up work
silently -- instead of leaving these things on the stderr even cannot be
seen in the logs. This will make the program depending on the JBoss
Rules to be more robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do this
job, can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current session is
considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside of the
actual consequence.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Hi,
Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch, however
it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the rule's action part,
the Exception will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this will
make the rule engine stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't
help anything.
If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be caught
externally, the system can be protected from interrupting Exception.
try {
_log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
session.fireAllRules();
} catch (Exception e) {
_log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
}
Thanks,
Yang
________________________________
_______________________________________________
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
10:57 a.m.
if a rule throws an exception you can catch it from java land and create
your new session, we do not swallow excpetions.What we do though is wrap
them to RuntimeExceptions, so you would have to get out the nested
exception to see the real problem.
Beyond the above, I guess I don't understand what it is you are looking for.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes
sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence part
of rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in run-time
which are hard to predict, especially when a complex action or logic
will be executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the
rule that there is something wrong during the rule firing process,
then and he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it
should enable the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the
clean up work silently -- instead of leaving these things on the
stderr even cannot be seen in the logs. This will make the program
depending on the JBoss Rules to be more robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do this
job, can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, *Mark Proctor* <mproctor(a)codehaus.org
<mailto:mproctor@codehaus.org>> wrote:
Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current session
is considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside of
the actual consequence.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
>
> I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch,
> however it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the
> rule's action part, the Exception will be thrown and printed to
> the stderr, and this will make the rule engine stop working
> -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
>
> If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be
> caught externally, the system can be protected from interrupting
> Exception.
>
> try {
> _log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
>
> session.fireAllRules();
>
> } catch (Exception e) {
> _log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
11:20 a.m.
Mark,
I think what they are asking for is a more graceful mechanism to handle
exceptions. E.g., the session would probably still be invalidated, but we
could provide more meaningful exception management, like isolating/reporting
the rule causing the problem, and eventually even allow for error recovery
(in case the user knows what he is doing), maybe removing the offending
rule. The accumulate returning null is another example of where we could use
such a mechanism.
I also think this would be good when we move to areas like
high-availability as we were discussing the other day.
I would say, lets investigate and maybe add some support for next feature
release (4.2 or whatever).
[]s
Edson
2007/8/24, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org>:
if a rule throws an exception you can catch it from java land and create
your new session, we do not swallow excpetions.What we do though is wrap
them to RuntimeExceptions, so you would have to get out the nested exception
to see the real problem.
Beyond the above, I guess I don't understand what it is you are looking
for.
Mark
Yang Song wrote:
Thanks a lot for the answer, Mark. But I don't think it makes sense.
Because in some scenarios, you cannot guarantee the consequence part of
rule is 100% correct -- there could be errors happening in run-time which
are hard to predict, especially when a complex action or logic will be
executed as the concequece.
There should at least be some mechanisms to tell whoever fires the rule
that there is something wrong during the rule firing process, then and
he can do something, e.g. create a new session. Also it should enable
the rule firer to catch these exceptions and do the clean up work silently
-- instead of leaving these things on the stderr even cannot be seen in the
logs. This will make the program depending on the JBoss Rules to be more
robust.
What do you think? If JBoss Rules already has the ability to do this job,
can you please let me know?
Thanks again,
Yang
On 8/24/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org> wrote:
>
> Once an exception is thrown on a conseuqence the current session is
> considered invalid. You'll need to add the try catch inside of the actual
> consequence.
>
> Mark
> Yang Song wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Anyone knows how to catch the exception when firing the rules?
>
> I wrapped the session.fireAllRules() method using try...catch, however
> it doesn't work: when someone wrote bad code in the rule's action part, the
> Exception will be thrown and printed to the stderr, and this will make the
> rule engine stop working -- the try...catch outside doesn't help anything.
>
> If the exception thrown from the rule's action part can be caught
> externally, the system can be protected from interrupting Exception.
>
> try {
> _log.debug("Firing rules in : " + getName());
>
> session.fireAllRules();
>
> } catch (Exception e) {
> _log.info("Error when firing rules: ", e);
> }
>
> Thanks,
> Yang
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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@lists.jboss.orghttps://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
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
6301
days inactive
6304
days old
16 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Anstis, Michael (M.) -
Edson Tirelli -
Heyns, Juan -
Knapp, Barry -
Manukyan, Sergey -
Mark Proctor -
Yang Song