> you'll have to evaluate all relevant conditions individually and keep track of the positives

Would it be reasonable to suggest that the Drools team provide the user community with some tool, API, or other framework construct that might assist us when we are faced with this exact task?

I mean, yes, what you suggest here works (and it works perfectly). But, for such an important and common user concern, we currently face a lot of "Drools .DRL keystroke labor" to get us completely where we need to be wrt to coding this tactic completely.

Does your Intellifest white paper (today is the day? HOORAY!) comment at all on strategies to achieve this pattern in .DRL code? It would be way cool if the framework itself liberated us with a “just add water and out comes the .DRL code you want” capability. Such a capability would deliver to users a full answer wrt to our “when do rules fail to fire?” accounting needs.

Admittedly, I don’t know of a best way to proceed wrt to potentially providing that capability. But I do know it would be nice.

As always, thank you very much for this forum’s superb support.

-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:07 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Non short circuit ANDing

[Groundhog Day]

If you need to know all the reasons why a rule doesn't fire you'll have to evaluate all relevant conditions individually and keep track of the positives. (See a very recent thread on this list.)

-W

On 29/01/2013, mp <meitreyi.panchmia@morganstanley.com> wrote:

> I need to record the results of each of the conditions as a side

> effect in a list. But in case condition1 is false, condition2 would

> not be evaluated.

> This would prevent me from knowing whether or not condition2 was

> true/false.

> 5.8.3.3.12. Operator precedence at

> http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.2.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/ht

> ml/ch05.html#d0e3962 lists & as an operator. But it somehow doesn't

> work.

> --