Unfortunately, in his case does not matter if he is using identity or
equality behavior, because the problem is in the constraint, that is telling
the engine to use equals():
applicant == $applicant
2008/8/4 Fenderbosch, Eric <Eric.Fenderbosch(a)fedex.com>
How is your rule base configured, with identity or equality assert
*From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:
rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *ringsah(a)comcast.net
*Sent:* Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case,
three fact objects, and the drl.
One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
"equals" method that tests for equality of its attributes, rather than
identity. A second key is that the applicant object is updated after it is
It appears that what is happening is that an activation is created for the
rule that uses "not" when the applicant is inserted. Then, when the
applicant is updated, a second activation is created for that rule. It
should be cancelling the previous activation, but doesn't find it because
the Applicant instance no longer "equals" the fact object that caused the
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Edson Tirelli" <tirelli(a)post.com>
Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
> How is "
> not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different
> rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:*
> *"Rule One"
> not NegativeResult()
> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));*
> *"Rule Two"
> *insertLogical*(new ApplicantStatus("Denied"));*
> Assume that the above two rules are the only way an
> ApplicantStatus fact can be inserted into working memory. I would expect,
> after all rules are run, that it would be impossible for there to be one
> ApplicantStatus with "Approved" as its reason, and another with
"Denied"as its reason, in the working memory.
> I would expect that, before any
> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule one could run, and insert an
> ApplicantStatus fact with an "Approved" reason. Then, after a
> NegativeResult is inserted, that rule two could run, and insert an
> ApplicantStatus fact with a "Denied" reason. At this point I would expect
> that the original ApplicantStatus fact, with an "Approved" reason, would
> be retracted, since the conditions under which it was inserted are no lon!
> ger true.
> This is not what I am observing, however. I am finding
> ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of
> the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a
> via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it
> is designed to work?
> rules-users mailing list
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
rules-users mailing list
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @