I think I got the point....

 

This is the rule (table generated) which sets the "upronto" field.

 

(It should have been fired in a previous ruleflow-node)

 

package com.rules.ConsolidateData;

#generated from Decision Table

import com.engine.wrappers.ContractWrapper;

import com.engine.enums.Pronto;

#From row number: 13

rule "Pronto_13"

(RULEFLOW GROUP IS MISSING!!!!!)

when

cw: ContractWrapper(mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y", mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y")

then

cw.setUpronto(Pronto.Y);

System.out.println("PS1"+cw.getMycontract().getId());

end

I think I DEFINED "THE RULEFLOW-GROUP" IN THE WRONG WAY  in the .xls table!!!

 

So, I think... the Pronto_13 rule has been fired after the ScorePronto rule.

 

I tell you how I defined it....

 

In the same column where I have "Ruleset", "Import" and "Variables" I put "RULEFLOW-GROUP" as well...it is as follows:

 

|Ruleset                       | ...                                          |

|Import                         | ...import ... ContractWrapper...|

|Variables                     | ...                                         |

|RULEFLOW-GROUP   | Scoring                                  |           <--- HERE!

 

 

Is it correct?

 

I thought this is what was meant in http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1077

 

In case this were not the problem I really would not know what to do.... now I go to sleep... here in rome is quite late!

 

I hope tomorrow to work it out.

 

Thank You for your Help Edson!

 

Buona notte.

 

Massi

"Edson Tirelli" <tirelli@post.com> ha scritto nel messaggio news:e6dd5ba30802161533m1d6e035cq9e12dd1b148fa71@mail.gmail.com...

   Need to see the full test case to be able to understand if it is a bug or not, because the expression in the LHS is using the ShadowProxy, while the one in the RHS is not... so, it may be a bug or it may not... depends when and how you are setting the upronto field.

   []s
   Edson

2008/2/16, mmquelo@gmail.com <mmquelo@gmail.com>:

 

Look at this....

 

I have got a "ContractWrapper" fact inserted into WM.

 

It wraps a "Contract" object and some "enums" fields.

 

One of these fields is "upronto":

 

public

class ContractWrapper extends BaseOmPersistentWithAssignedId{

Contract

mycontract=null;

...

Pronto upronto = null;

...

<getters and setters....>

...

}

 

 

"upronto" is an insance of a "Pronto" java enum:

 

public

enum Pronto {

N

,

UNKNOWN

,

Y

;

}

 

"Pronto" can be : (Y, N, UNKNOWN)

 

Here is the rule which reasons over this enum:

(ofcourse I have got a Request into WM as well)

 

rule "ScorePronto"
dialect "mvel"
ruleflow-group "Scoring"
 when
     $r:Request( $mc:mainContract != null )
     $cw_p:ContractWrapper($c_w_p:mycontract == $mc, eval(upronto != Pronto.Y))

 then 
     System.out.println("Test Result: "+($cw_p.upronto == Pronto.Y))  
end

 

Any guesses for the output???

 

Well....

 

Test Result: true

 

HOW COMES???????????????????

 

I mean ... the test "eval(upronto != Pronto.Y)" returned "true".... It means that the rule

engine sees upronto <> Pronto.Y!, doesn't it??!!!!

 

So... why do I get "upronto == Pronto.Y" in the RHS????

 

What the.........&$%%&()%%$/%£....sorry....but having these

kind of problems during saturday night is not so pleaseant! 

 

T-T

 

I really hope you can help me with a  workaround to this issue.

 

Bye

 

Massi

 

 

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

--
  Edson Tirelli
  JBoss Drools Core Development
  Office: +55 11 3529-6000
  Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
  JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com

---

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users