Indeed, it did not help.

Any other ideas?

Please...

Thanks,

Michiel

-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials

From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts

Op 02-09-12 16:11, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Hi,
>
> I have set the environment option to DEBUG and now the solver reports
> this exception:
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
> The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
> tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing
> 737 - PJ23.I#1]
> tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2]
> Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
> at
> org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
> at
> org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
> at
> org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
> at
> org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
> at
> org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
> at
> org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
> at
> be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
>
> It is caused by this rule:
>
> rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $jobId :
> jobId )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, jobId
> == $jobId)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1));
I expect you would add $t2 to the causes too:
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));

It's unlikely that that's causing the score corruption though.

> end
>
> Don't really know where to go from here.
> I have implemented an equals(Object obj) method in my planningEntity
> class (MaintenanceTask) as I found on a nabble thread that might be the
> cause.
> Though, no change.
>
> I have added the code of my (Eclipse maven) project for those who want
> to have a look at it.
> (both as attachment and on my public dropbox
> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40512353/PlanePlanner.zip)
> I have the feeling that - since I am such a newbie - I'm just making a
> very silly mistake that can be spotted in a glimpse by someone with
> expertise.
>
> Many thanks in advance!!
>
> Michiel
>
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> *To:* rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 5:43 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Add a generic swap move factory too, if you haven't already.
> change move factory alone doesn't suffice
>
> Op 31-08-12 17:08, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
> >
> > It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
> >
> > The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough
> > technicians to plan all maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
> > The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then
> > the planner does not come up with a feasible solution.
> > Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance
> > tasks were planned on P2 or P3...
> >
> > Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
> essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand@yahoo.com
> <mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> > *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > My excuses,
> >
> > The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the
> task.
> > My last change wasn't that great ;-)
> >
> > Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
> > A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
> >
> > Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
> > Trying now with 600 seconds...
> >
> > Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
> > So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Michiel
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
> essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand@yahoo.com
> <mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> > *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
> >
> > So basically what I do is correct?
> >
> > I'm still curious why
> > a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
> > isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
> > isTerminateEarly: false
> > score: 0
> >
> > b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
> >
> > I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
> > After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
> > planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
> >
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
> essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> > *To:* rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > > Hi, me once more.
> > >
> > > I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
> > > (planning).
> > > Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
> > > I'm drifting, so please help...
> > >
> > > I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
> > > I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
> > > of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
> > > I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
> > > availability during a period...
> > >
> > > Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
> > > available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
> > > solution in about 3 seconds.
> > It probably stopped early because basically all solutions had been seen.
> >
> > > Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
> > > results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than
> a few
> > > minutes).
> > you got:
> > <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> > so it will run for over 11 minutes.
> > Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
> > termination methods).
> >
> > The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
> > planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
> > find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
> > manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
> > give it.
> >
> > > Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
> > > under 3 seconds.
> > >
> > > I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
> > > technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
> > > 400 available technicians..
> > > So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
> > >
> > > What I did:
> > >
> > > I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
> > > variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
> > > (See all below)
> > > Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
> > >
> > > Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
> > >
> > > Many thanks!!
> > >
> > > PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
> > >
> > > @PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
> > > TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
> > > public class MaintenanceTask {
> > >
> > > private Period period;
> > > private Project project;
> > > private Technician technician;
> > >
> > > public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
> > > this.project = aProject;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public String getId(){
> > > return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
> > > }
> > >
> > > @PlanningVariable
> > > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > > solutionProperty = "technicians")
> > > public Technician getTechnician() {
> > > return technician;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
> > > this.technican= aTechnician;
> > > }
> > >
> > > @PlanningVariable
> > > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > > solutionProperty = "periods")
> > > public Period getPeriod() {
> > > return period;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
> > > this.period = aPeriod;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public String getPeriodId(){
> > > return period == null ? null : period.getId();
> > > }
> > >
> > > public String getProjectId(){
> > > return project == null ? null : project.getId();
> > > }
> > >
> > > public MaintenanceTask clone() {
> > > MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
> > > clone.period = this.period;
> > > clone.technician= this.technician;
> > > return clone;
> > > }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > Project.java
> > >
> > > public class Project {
> > > private Plane plane;
> > >
> > > public Project(Plane aPlane) {
> > > this.plane = aPlane;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public Plane getPlane() {
> > > return plane;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public String getId() {
> > > return getPlane().getName();
> > > }
> > >
> > > public int getTechnicianLoad(){
> > > return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
> > > }
> > >
> > > public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
> > > List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new
> ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
> > > for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
> > > tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
> > > }
> > > return tasks;
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
> > > classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
> > > Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
> > > required technicians for the maintenance.
> > >
> > > This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
> > >
> > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > > <solver>
> > > 
> > >
> > <solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
> > >
> > >
> >
> <planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
> > >
> > > 
> > > <scoreDirectorFactory>
> > > <scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
> > > <scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
> > > </scoreDirectorFactory>
> > >
> > > <termination>
> > > <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> > > </termination>
> > >
> > > <constructionHeuristic>
> > >
> > >
> >
> <constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
> > >
> > >
> >
> <constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
> > > </constructionHeuristic>
> > > <localSearch>
> > > <selector>
> > >
> > >
> >
> <moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
> > > 
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
> > > </selector>
> > > <acceptor>
> > > <solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
> > > <planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
> > > </acceptor>
> > > <forager>
> > > <minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
> > > </forager>
> > > </localSearch>
> > > </solver>
> > >
> > > this is the rules file:
> > >
> > > package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
> > > dialect "java"
> > >
> > > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
> > > import
> org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
> > > import
> > >
> org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
> > > import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
> > >
> > > import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
> > >
> > > global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
> > >
> > > //
> > >
> >
> ############################################################################
> > > // Hard constraints
> > > //
> > >
> >
> ############################################################################
> > >
> > > rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
> > > when
> > > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > > $technician : technician )
> > > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
> > > technician == $technician)
> > > then
> > > insertLogical(new
> > > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod",
> $t1,
> > > $t2));
> > > end
> > >
> > > rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
> > > when
> > > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > > $projectId : projectId )
> > > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
> > > $projectId)
> > > then
> > > insertLogical(new
> > > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
> > > $t1, $t2));
> > > end
> > >
> > > //
> > >
> >
> ############################################################################
> > > // Calculate score
> > > //
> > >
> >
> ############################################################################
> > >
> > > rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
> > > when
> > > $occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
> > > $unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
> > > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
> > > count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
> > > )
> > > then
> > > scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
> > > end
> > >
> > > Solution file:
> > >
> > > package be.axi.planner.domain;
> > >
> > > import java.util.ArrayList;
> > > import java.util.Collection;
> > > import java.util.List;
> > >
> > > import
> > >
> org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
> > > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
> > > import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
> > >
> > >
> > > public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
> > >
> > > private SimpleScore score;
> > > private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
> > > private List<Period> periods;
> > > private List<Technician> technicians;
> > >
> > > public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
> > > MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
> > > clone.periods = this.periods;
> > > clone.technicians = this.technicians;
> > > List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new
> > ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
> > > maintenanceTasks.size());
> > > for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
> > > MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
> > > clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
> > > }
> > > clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
> > > clone.score = this.score;
> > >
> > > return clone;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
> > > System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
> > > List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
> > > facts.addAll(periods);
> > > facts.addAll(technicians);
> > > // Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
> > > that will be done automatically
> > > return facts;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public SimpleScore getScore() {
> > > return this.score;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
> > > this.score = aScore;
> > > if (aScore != null){
> > > System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
> > > public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
> > > System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
> +maintenanceTasks.size());
> > > return maintenanceTasks;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
> > > aMaintenanceTasks) {
> > > System.out.println("setting tasks");
> > > this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
> > > System.out.println("setting Technicians");
> > > this.technicians = aTechnicians;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
> > > System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
> > > return technicians;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public List<Period> getPeriods() {
> > > System.out.println("getting periods");
> > > return periods;
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
> > > this.periods = periods;
> > > }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
> <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
> > essential software, for free!
> > > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>
> > > *To:* rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > > airplanes and shifts
> > >
> > > Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > > > Thank you for the response.
> > > > I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
> > > >
> > > > The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
> > > >
> > > > We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> > > > One period every month.
> > > >
> > > > We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> > > > planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> > > > But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> > > > specific period.
> > > > It has though a calendar of unavailability.
> > > >
> > > > So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> > > > constraint on period.
> > > >
> > > > We need to find that combination with the best match between
> required
> > > > skills for the job and available technicians.
> > > > It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a
> more
> > > > skilled technician is available.
> > > >
> > > > I hope this is a bit clear.
> > > >
> > > > So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> > > > 2) Technician
> > >
> > > Good idea
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> > > > (hard-constraint)
> > > I see 3:
> > > - plane availability
> > > - technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
> > > - technician availability
> > > > Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
> > >
> > > yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thank you.
> > > >
> > > > Michiel
> > > >
> > > > -----------------
> > > > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
> <http://www.codessentials.com/> -
> > Your essential software, for free!
> > > > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > > >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> > <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> > > <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>>
> > > > *To:* rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> > > > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > > > airplanes and shifts
> > > >
> > > > Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> > > > >
> > > > > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say -
> airplanes.
> > > > > Constraints are:
> > > > > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance
> (when
> > > not in
> > > > > the air ;-)
> > > > > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
> > > specific
> > > > > skills).
> > > > > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> > > > In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> > > > The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> > > >
> > > > > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> > > > planningEntity.
> > > > > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
> > > >
> > > > I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one
> > side of
> > > > the manyToOne relation.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > > > > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with
> specific
> > > > skills.
> > > > > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
> > > >
> > > > Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> > > > You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and
> > their jobs
> > > > and the number of technicians needed by each job.
> > > >
> > > > I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple
> technicians
> > > > that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse
> > rostering
> > > > there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> > > > variables to
> > > > > the Task planningEntity:
> > > > > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required
> tasks) and
> > > >
> > > > I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity
> Task.
> > > > It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of
> > sort of
> > > > requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> > > >
> > > > > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> > > > This is a planning variable.
> > > > You're assigning task to techinicians.
> > > > Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple
> tasks,
> > > > one per required technician).
> > > > Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> > > > constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and
> availability of
> > > > > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and
> skills of
> > > > > technicien.
> > > >
> > > > Yep, with constraints
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> > > > >
> > > > > Will it perform well?
> > > > > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > > > > techniciens-availability and -skills.
> > > >
> > > > It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> > > > In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move
> selector
> > > > to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different
> > tasks on
> > > > the same job.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-examples/src/main/java/org/drools/planner/examples/curriculumcourse/solver/move/DifferentCourseSwapMoveFilter.javatd
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks in advance
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > View this message in context:
> > > >
> > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > > > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com
> > > > <http://nabble.com/>.
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users