[rules-users] Re: You must see this, guys...new bug? defining rules saturday night made me mad?

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(a)post.com&gt; 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(a)gmail.com <mmquelo(a)gmail.com&gt;: 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(a)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(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users