Re: [rules-users] Rules not firing when facts asserted in a rule RHS in 5.0 - diagnosed with workaround (but not fixed)

On 12/1/10 5:09 PM, Chris Selwyn wrote: > Having just looked in the Drools JIRA repository, I pretty sure that > it is the same issue as was reported in JBRULES-2140 > <https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2140>;.

> That entry has a repro. thanks for finding > > I am interested as to what you mean by "right around the corner"? > this month > Here is a repro anyway... > > <QUOTE> > package rulestest > global java.util.logging.Logger logger > > declare QuestionValidation > question: String > mandatory: Boolean > state: String > type: String > end > > function void testfunc() { > System.out.println("testfunc called"); > > } > > rule 'init' > dialect "mvel" > when > eval(true) > then > QuestionValidation qv = new QuestionValidation(); > qv.setState("ss"); > qv.setQuestion("qq"); > insert(qv); > logger.info("Hello world"); > > end > > rule 'test' > dialect "mvel" > when > $qv: QuestionValidation() > then > logger.info("Found a qv " + $qv); > > end > </QUOTE> > > If the testfunc is present then the "test" rule never fires. If it is > not present then the "test" rule fires just fine. > > Chris > > On 01/12/2010 21:47, Tihomir Surdilovic wrote: >> Hi Chris, could you attach the repository export xml from your repo >> that I can use to reproduce the issue with? BRMS 5.1 (supported >> bits) is right around the corner and I would be able to tell you if >> the issue still persists with the currently tested bits for 5.1. >> >> Thanks. >> Tihomir >> >> On 12/1/10 4:29 PM, Chris Selwyn wrote: >>> Having spent all day on this one, I have finally got to the bottom >>> of it. >>> >>> The problem is reproducible if I have /both/ a declarative fact >>> model /and/ a function in my rules. >>> It doesn't matter whether the function is called or not... It's >>> presence is enough to cause the problem. >>> >>> Any rule that is dependent on the existence of an instance of the >>> declarative fact model where the instance is created in the RHS of >>> another rule will not fire. >>> >>> I suspect that this is a bug that has been fixed in 5.1 because I >>> have been using this technique in Drools 5.1... It's only since >>> downgrading to the (supported) JBoss Rules 5.0 that I have >>> experienced the problem. >>> >>> Does anyone know if there is a fix in the 5.0 branch? >>> >>> If I create a "real" Java class and upload it in a jar file to the >>> Guvnor and use that in place of the declarative model then the >>> problem does not happen. >>> This is a workaround in the short term but I would much prefer not >>> to have to do this. >>> >>> Chris Selwyn >>> >>> >>> On 01/12/2010 15:14, Chris Selwyn wrote: >>>> Yes the package is "SWWB2BOutgoing" but it looks as though the >>>> package name simple doesn't get reported in the log file. >>>> >>>> I have been debugging through this thing and where I've got to so >>>> far is that I am getting two (and maybe more) entries for the >>>> class "SWWB2BOutgoing.QuestionValidation" in the >>>> ObjectTypeConfigurationRepository. >>>> So my current question is "How is this possible?" Is it maybe a >>>> classloader issue? >>>> >>>> Chris >>>> >>>> >>>> On 01/12/2010 12:05, Wolfgang Laun wrote: >>>>> A closer look: >>>>> >>>>> On 1 December 2010 11:13, Chris Selwyn <chris(a)selwyn-family.me.uk >>>>> <mailto:chris@selwyn-family.me.uk>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can see the facts being inserted in the log as follows >>>>> [#|2010-12-01T09:19:16.723+0000|INFO|sun-appserver2.1|javax.enterprise.system.stream.out|_ThreadID=70;_ThreadName=p: >>>>> thread-pool-1; w: 7;| >>>>> OBJECT ASSERTED value:QuestionValidation( mandatory=true, >>>>> state=Closed, >>>>> question=B2B_METER_SERIAL_NUMBER, type=string ) factId: 39|#] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Shouldn't the package name appear in the log as well? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However, if I insert a QuestionValidation fact created in >>>>> Java by using >>>>> kbase.getFactType("SWWB2BOutgoing", "QuestionValidation") >>>>> then the Test >>>>> rule gets fired just fine. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is, apparently "SWWB2BOutgoing". >>>>> >>>>> -W >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No virus found in this message. >>>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>>>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3290 - Release Date: >>>>> 11/30/10 >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-users mailing list >>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>> >>>> >>>> No virus found in this message. >>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >>>> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3290 - Release Date: 11/30/10 >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> >> No virus found in this message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> >> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3291 - Release Date: 12/01/10 >> _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users