Actually, in the light of day, I see why it behaved as it did. It doesn’t seem to be caused by the AccountHolder as such, but more the Employment object – if there are two of them, one with an accountholder and BusinessName that met the criteria, and one without, then the rule will fire whether the not is used or not, just on different instances of Employment.

Thanks for triggering the thought process, Miguel.

Tom Murphy
Business Process Consultant
Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform
800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266
MAC: X2301-01B
Office: 515 324 4853 | Mobile: 515 423 4334
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information.  If you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein.  If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message.  Thank you for your cooperation.

From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of miguel machado
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:19 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Bug in "not" ???

This is not entirely true: you may have different objects in memory in such a way that both fires rule. In this case, if you had two (or more!) AccountHolders for the same Employment, each of those having different BusinessName's associated, both rules (with and without the 'not') would fire.

Does that make sense?

_ miguel

2010/5/5 <Tom.E.Murphy@wellsfargo.com>

The following rule fires both when the “not” is there, and also if the “not” is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is something wrong somewhere.

--
"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"