As long as the result of the evaluationis same we are fine with it.
One more question regarding to the data migration. In Drools 5.0 there is no restriction
between the fact type and name so the fact name could be same as the fact type. After we
migrated the data to 5.3 we got the IllegalArgumentException: object is not an instance of
declaring class. Is it possible to fix the problem by converting the fact name to the
'Fact Type' with first character in lowercase during importing so the data is
backward compatible?
Thanks a lot,
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: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:53 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
This is fine.
5.2 onwards groups columns for the same pattern together - if you looked at the DRL fo 5.0
you'd have seen the columns are effectively grouped together too.
For example; given the following 5.0 configuration (taken from what you describe you have
done):-
Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
Pattern $b : Column B - Condition 1
Pattern $c : Column C - Condition 1
Pattern $d : Column D - Condition 1
Pattern $a : Column E - Condition 2
Pattern $b : Column F - Condition 2
5.0 DRL
$a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
$d : Pattern( Condition 1 )
Importing this into 5.3 groups the columns:-
Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1
Pattern $a : Column B - Condition 2
Pattern $b : Column C - Condition 1
Pattern $b : Column D - Condition 2
Pattern $c : Column E - Condition 1
Pattern $d : Column F - Condition 1
5.2 DRL
$a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 )
$c : Pattern( Condition 1 )
$d : Pattern( Condition 1 )
Furthermore, at the request of the community, the behavior of "default values"
changed so that the are only the default value for a new row (5.2 onwards) and not the
value used for an empty cell (5.0). I know this has caused some re-work for people
migrating a legacy decision table from 5.0 to 5.2 but since the impact, to date, has been
small I do not plan on making any programmatic changes.
With kind regards,
Mike
2012/2/13 jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
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~guvnor-webapp~5.3.2-SNAPSHOT~~
>
>
>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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users