Re: [rules-users] (no subject)

I had some tests working fine in jbpm 5.1 but failing in 5.3 because of this same reason. I'm not sure if this is this is a regression bug or if there is a deliberated change in the behavior. Maybe someone in the jbpm dev team can shed some light here. Best Regards, XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Esteban Aliverti - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com 2012/2/13 Alberto R. Galdo <argaldo(a)gmail.com&gt; > > According to the documentation: > > "Rule constraints do not have direct access to variables defined inside >> the process. >> It is however possible to refer to the current process instance inside a >> rule constraint, >> by adding the process instance to the Working Memory and matching for >> the process instance in your rule constraint. >> We have added special logic to make sure that a variable processInstance >> of type WorkflowProcessInstance >> will only match to the current process instance and not to other process >> instances in the Working Memory. >> Note that you are however responsible yourself to insert the process >> instance into the session and, >> possibly, to update it, for example, using Java code or an on-entry or >> on-exit or explicit action in your process. >> The following example of a rule constraint will search for a person with >> the same name as the value stored in the variable "name" of the process:" >> > > > This however does not seem to be true. > > The first rule is to receive a stream of objects of type MyObject. > This rule starts an associated process. > > The second rule will be called by the process (from bpmn). > > Within the process there a task that invokes an an asynchronous service, > ie, > an implementation of WorkItemHandler that contains a Thread that will set > call > manager.completeWorkItem(workItemId,results); > when 30s have passed). > > With this setup we can observe what happens when 2 MyObject instances > come into the first rule separated by a short period of time (say 5 > seconds). > > When the first object comes in a process is created and started (with > process id=1) > The process passes from the start node to the callMyTask node, which > invokes the slow WorkItemHandler references by MyTask > (which we have previously registered into session.getWorkItemManager() ). > Because the WorkItemHandler has a thread that waits 30s before completing > the work item, it just sits there doing nothing (so far everything is ok) > and allows the engine to process other events. > > 5 seconds later we insert another MyObject into the stream. > The first rule gets fired and created another process (with process id=2). > The process passes from the start node to the callMyTask node, which > invoke our slow service. > > We have thus two processes running in parallel. > > When the first callMyTask node completes, the next node completeTask is > invoked. > > The rule "process complete" is matched as it belongs to the rule flow > group "Complete task group". > > At this point we observe that the rule is matched twice spitting out: > > processInstance.id 2 > processInstance.id 1 > . > So the rule has matched both process instances that are in working memory > and not just the one (with process id 1) > that called the "process complete" rule. > > > > The rule file > ------------- > > rule "New case" > when > $myobject : MyObject(processed==false) from entry-point "myobject > stream" > then > ProcessInstance > processInstance=kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().createProcessInstance("com.mycompany.process.MyProcess", > parameters); > insert(processInstance); > > kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().startProcessInstance(processInstance.getId()); > modify ($myobject){ > setProcessed(true) > } > end > > rule "process complete" > ruleflow-group "Complete task group" > no-loop true > when > $processInstance: WorkflowProcessInstance() > then > System.out.println("processInstance.id " + > $processInstance.getId()); > end > > > The BPMN xml > ------------ > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > <definitions id="Definition" > targetNamespace="http://www.jboss.org/drools" > typeLanguage="http://www.java.com/javaTypes" > expressionLanguage="http://www.mvel.org/2.0" > xmlns="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL" > xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" > xsi:schemaLocation=" > http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL BPMN20.xsd" > xmlns:g="http://www.jboss.org/drools/flow/gpd" > xmlns:bpmndi="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/DI" > xmlns:dc="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DC" > xmlns:di="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DI" > xmlns:tns="http://www.jboss.org/drools"> > > <process processType="Private" isExecutable="true" > id="com.mycompany.process.MyProcess" name="my process" > > > <!-- process variables --> > > <!-- nodes --> > <startEvent id="start" name="StartProcess" /> > > <task id="callMyTask" name="call my task" tns:taskName="MyTask" > > <ioSpecification> > </ioSpecification> > </task> > > > <businessRuleTask id="completeTask" name="Complete slow task" > g:ruleFlowGroup="Complete task group" > > </businessRuleTask> > > <endEvent id="end" name="EndProcess" /> > > <!-- connections --> > <sequenceFlow id="start-callMyTask" sourceRef="start" > targetRef="callMyTask" /> > <sequenceFlow id="callMyTask-completeTask" sourceRef="callMyTask" > targetRef="completeTask" /> > <sequenceFlow id="completeTask-end" sourceRef="completeTask" > targetRef="end" /> > </process> > </definitions> > > > What's wrong with this? Isn't WorkflowProcessInstance() supposed to be > attached to the calling ProcessInstance? Is there another way of getting > the group of rules fire only for the processinstance that called it? > > > Greets, > > _______________________________________________ > 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