Thank you for the quick answer! This makes absolutely sense and the rules work now as expected.

Unfortunately, I was not able to find this somewhere in the documentation. It would be nice to see it in the documentation of drools fusion.

Best,

Wolfgang

Von: rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] Im Auftrag von Wolfgang Laun
Gesendet: Montag, 16. Jänner 2012 15:58
An: Rules Users List
Betreff: Re: [rules-users] Problem with Negative Patterns and Temporal Constraints

I don't see that the "not" CE excludes the AnalysisCue bound to $cue from being
matched by the pattern inside the "not". I recommend using

   not(AnalysisCue(this != $cue, this after[0ms,2500ms] $cue) from

since "[0ms,..." does not inhibit the same event being matched by both patterns,
which precludes the rule from firing.

-W

2012/1/16 Weiss, Wolfgang <Wolfgang.Weiss@joanneum.at>

Hi all!

We have the problem that the following rule never fires:

rule "test-rule"

agenda-group "evaluation"

salience 100

when

             $cue : AnalysisCue() from entry-point "LowLevelCueStream"

not(AnalysisCue(this after[0ms,2500ms] $cue) from entry-point "LowLevelCueStream")

then

             logger.debug("... some message ..");

end

We found out that the problem is the combination of the negation with the conditional element “not” and the temporal constraint “[0ms,2500ms]”. Using the temporal operator “this after $cue” without a temporal constraint works correct in its semantics.

Interestingly, when adding a constraint (cueType == 1) to the type in the negative pattern the rule begins to work. The rule would look like as follows:

rule "test-rule"

agenda-group "evaluation"

salience 100

when

             $cue : AnalysisCue() from entry-point "LowLevelCueStream"

not(AnalysisCue(cueType == 1, this after[0ms,2500ms] $cue) from entry-point "LowLevelCueStream")

then

             logger.debug("... some message ..");

end

unfortunately the rule then fires with a delay of 4 to 5 seconds. The second parameter of the temporal constraint influences the delay.

When changing the first parameter of the temporal constraint to a value greater than 0 the rule works as expected! The constraint would then look like as follows: “[1ms, 2500ms]”. Whereas in our case, we want to evaluate the time window from 0 – 2500ms.

Our system works in the stream mode and we could reproduce this behaviour with the versions 5.3.1 and 5.4.0 Beta 1.

Can anybody confirm if this is a bug in Drools, or did I overlook here something?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Weiss

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