Re: [rules-users] Non short circuit ANDing

Ø Between those, you should be able to knock up something which does an appropriate audit of what's going on in your rules without refactoring any of your DRL. Ah. I think I get it. Based on my understanding of the code you provided, the Listener's objectInserted() method gets a callback from the DROOLs runtime whenever a KS fact insert event is processed. I could then use the ObjectInsertedEvent reference (passed by the callback) to do my own accounting/auditing of the fact, including the ability to establish "did this rule fail?" by providing the equivalent of the .DRL L-value logic in the objectInserted() method's implementation? If my understanding is correct, I could then get an *exactly* precise answer to "why did this rule fail?" by iterating on the equivalent of each of the .DRL L-value predicate participants and evaluating "did this specific predicate participant fail to match?". Very interesting. That would, indeed, effectively unburden the .DRL from any audit/accounting logic - moving the burden to the Listener. Is my understanding close to how you envisioned doing this? Very interesting. Thanks again! From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Masters Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 4:49 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Non short circuit ANDing fyi - if you're just learning your way around working memory event listeners and the like, here's some example code. It's an extended version of something I found in the Drools docs. A tracking working memory event listener: https://github.com/gratiartis/sctrcd-fx-web/blob/master/src/main/java/uk/... Attach it to your session to keep track of all facts as they are inserted/updated/retracted. It also supports filtering for fact classes or handles so that you can pick out which ones are relevant. A tracking agenda event listener: https://github.com/gratiartis/sctrcd-fx-web/blob/master/src/main/java/uk/... Keeps track of and logs every rule which fires. I use them in this test helper class, which enables me to create unit tests which assert that specific rules have fired or that specific facts are in working memory. https://github.com/gratiartis/sctrcd-fx-web/blob/master/src/main/java/uk/... Between those, you should be able to knock up something which does an appropriate audit of what's going on in your rules without refactoring any of your DRL. I prefer using listeners like this to monitor what's going on, as they don't intrude on your code. I tend to think that the rules should be simple and specific to the decision being made, rather than needing them to be written in a specific way in order to achieve some side effects. Steve On 31 Jan 2013, at 00:53, Davide Sottara <dsotty@gmail.com<mailto:dsotty@gmail.com>> wrote: Gents, this is a really interesting discussion and I wish I had more time to participate.. I agree with Stephen that some constraints are really worthy monitoring, while others are simply "filters".. Wolfgang's mention of "near misses" is potentially a hot topic, I have been experimenting with "imperfect" rules which are more robust in that sense and provide better traceability, but that is not yet implemented in the core engine. I would also point out that one thing is monitor constraints for "logging" or "auditing" purposes, another is the ability to specify different behaviours (i.e. consequences) according to the success vs failure of an evaluation. To this end, and following on the "extending" rule thread, it has actually been planned and partially implemented.. it's only an experimental feature (@Mario, any update/clarification?), so it's probably not well documented. But I would point you to these links: http://blog.athico.com/2012/09/conditional-branches-with-sub-blocks.html https://community.jboss.org/wiki/BranchCEs with the warning that it's still experimental and, while adopting "familiar" keywords (if, then, else, switch), their semantics is different from the usual imperative language one, and in fact could enable some of the "extend" capabilities that have been invoked in the last couple of posts. Best Davide On 01/30/2013 02:25 PM, Cotton, Ben wrote: automatically rename each rule "part" (being a single-condition rule derived from the original) to some derivation of the original rule name, and need the consequence only in the fully-extended rule, thereby giving the same effect, but with rule "parts" that would reflect failure at the individual condition level This is *exactly* the ambition we are hoping that some Drools .DRL enrichment tool (or other Drools capability) can provide. Wish I had sufficient competency to comment on the merits of your different suggested approaches. Hopeful that the Drools gurus will comment explicitly on all these approaches (and/or the approach suggested by another of using Working Memory listeners). _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users ________________________________ NOTICE: Morgan Stanley is not acting as a municipal advisor and the opinions or views contained herein are not intended to be, and do not constitute, advice within the meaning of Section 975 of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. If you have received this communication in error, please destroy all electronic and paper copies and notify the sender immediately. Mistransmission is not intended to waive confidentiality or privilege. Morgan Stanley reserves the right, to the extent permitted under applicable law, to monitor electronic communications. This message is subject to terms available at the following link: http://www.morganstanley.com/disclaimers If you cannot access these links, please notify us by reply message and we will send the contents to you. By messaging with Morgan Stanley you consent to the foregoing.