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@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
To: drools-user <rules-users@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@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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users