RETRACT - RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? - truth maintenance issue?

Sorry to all - I've traced the issue down to me. Because the new Attribute was logically asserted and it's very assertion caused "rule 3a" not to be true the Attribute was being correctly revoked. Using rules sure makes your brain twist and turn! As far as I can tell the problem with "contains" is still correct (i.e. not working properly). -----Original Message----- From: Anstis, Michael (M.) Sent: 20 March 2007 09:49 To: 'Rules Users List' Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? - truth maintenance issue? Re-posted without the attachment (224kb). If you require it I can send direct (or the original message is waiting to be moderated) -----Original Message----- From: Anstis, Michael (M.) Sent: 20 March 2007 09:40 To: 'Rules Users List' Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? - truth maintenance issue? Hi (Edson?), I came across another problem (verified with trunk) which I think relates to truth maintenance:- ** Rules (only ones in rulebase) rule "Test 3a" salience 2000 when $m : Machine ( ) not (exists $a : Attribute ( name == "TEST4", parent == $m ) ) then System.out.println("DEBUG---> [salience 2000] Attribute 'TEST4' not found"); System.out.println("DEBUG---> [salience 2000] Attribute 'TEST4' added"); Attribute a = new Attribute("TEST4", 999); $m.addAttribute(a); assertLogical(a); end rule "Test 3b" salience 1999 when $m : Machine ( ) not (exists $a : Attribute ( name == "TEST4", parent == $m ) ) then System.out.println("DEBUG---> [salience 1999] Attribute 'TEST4' (still) not found - woot"); end rule "Test 3c" salience 1998 when $m : Machine ( ) exists $a : Attribute ( name == "TEST4", parent == $m ) then System.out.println("DEBUG---> [salience 1998] Attribute 'TEST4' found - double woot"); End This causes the execution of rule "Test 3a" to be constantly activated as illustrated with the attached log: Activations for "Rule 3a" are created, which asserts a new object causing cancellation of activation of "Rule 3b" and activation of "Rule 3c" (great!). However something somewhere is causing the newly asserted object to be retracted causing the reversal of the above leading to continued execution of "Rule 3a". With kind regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anstis, Michael (M.) Sent: 19 March 2007 16:52 To: 'Rules Users List' Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? Hi Edson, I've tested branch in SVN but have to report that the following does not work as expected:- ** Java Machine mt1=new Machine(); mt1.setDescription("Test Machine"); Attribute at1=new Attribute("TEST1", 5); Attribute at2=new Attribute("TEST2", 25); mt1.addAttribute(at1); // <-- A machine contains an ArrayList of Attributes mt1.addAttribute(at2); // <-- A machine contains an ArrayList of Attributes wm.assertObject(mt1); wm.assertObject(at1); wm.assertObject(at2); ** Rules rule "Test 1a" // <-- Works OK when $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" ) then System.out.println("DEBUG---> Adding new Attribute(\"TEST3\") to Machine"); Attribute a = new Attribute("TEST3", 100); $m.addAttribute(a); assertLogical(a); end rule "Test 1b" // <-- Does not activate when $a : Attribute ( name == "TEST3" ) $m : Machine ( attributesList contains $a ) then System.out.println("DEBUG---> Found machine with new Attribute"); End The following rule does however work which suggests a problem with "contains"(?):- rule "Test 1c" // <-- Does activate when $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" ) $a1 : Attribute ( name == "TEST1", parent == $m ) $a2 : Attribute ( name == "TEST2", parent == $m ) $a3 : Attribute ( name == "TEST3", parent == $m ) then System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $m.toString()); System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a1.toString()); System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a2.toString()); end Also, the following type of syntax appears problematic:- rule "Test 2" when $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" ) $a1 : Attribute ( name == "TEST1", parent == $m ) $a2 : Attribute ( name == "TEST2", parent == $m ) then System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $m.toString()); System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a1.toString()); System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a2.toString()); End This particular example works OK (all facts asserted outside of rules) however this (real life) example does not:- rule "Material - Lock Pressure Modifier" salience 849 when MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_PROCESS_TOTAL_XY, $txy : number ) $a2 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent == $m ) then Attribute a = new Attribute(Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, m); assertLogical(a); $m.addAttribute(a); end rule "Material - Clamping Force" salience 848 when MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) $a1 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_PROCESS_TOTAL_XY, $txy : number ) // <-- Same as above $a2 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent == $m ) // <-- Same as above //(a) $a3 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number, parent == $m ) // <-- Asserted above //(b) $a3 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number ) then System.out.println("DEBUG--->" + $a2.getParent()); System.out.println("DEBUG--->" + $a3.getParent()); end If line "//(a)" is used the rule does not fire; if rule "//(b)" is used instead (i.e. the RHS does not check the "parent" property) the rule triggers. However the two debug lines show "$a2.getParent()" and "$a3.getParent()" point to the same object - one "parent == $m" worked the other (asserted by a rule) does not appear to work. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: Anstis, Michael (M.) Sent: 15 March 2007 12:34 To: 'Rules Users List' Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? Hi Edson, Don't worry Edson - you have enough to do to excuse missing a question. I don't want to put the check into the consequence - oh no, but as given by my examples the rule "A" never fires when its in the LHS. I wanted to check my understanding that rule "A" should work the same as rule "B" with the difference being that the condition is handled by the RETE network and not some hacky code in the RHS. I am planning on checking both in trunk tonight - unfortunately family matters mean I can't spend too much time on the computer in the evenings and I was only able to play with Maven last night. Cheers, Mike -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli Sent: 15 March 2007 12:08 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? Michael, Sorry, I missed your previous message... why are you moving the check into the consequence? As you already realized, that is not a good solution... Did you tried your original rule in trunk? Bug is still there? []s Edson Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: $m another problem - -- Edson Tirelli Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer Office: +55 11 3124-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151 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