This thread is a bit long, could you summarize the open problems?
Op 20-02-13 19:22, André Fróes schreef:
I added another variable to check if it would still show the broken constraint and break the planner, and it still happens, I added this:
WorkOrder wo33 = new WorkOrder(103l, 8, Priority.P1, Nature.CORRECTIVE);SkillWorkOrder swo333 = new SkillWorkOrder(20333l, wo33, ABC1);SkillWorkOrder swo3332 = new SkillWorkOrder(203332l, wo33, ABC2);SkillWorkOrder swo3333 = new SkillWorkOrder(203333l, wo33, ABC3);SkillWorkOrder swo3334 = new SkillWorkOrder(203334l, wo33, ABC4);List<SkillWorkOrder> lswo33 = new ArrayList<SkillWorkOrder>();lswo33.add(swo333);lswo33.add(swo3332);lswo33.add(swo3333);lswo33.add(swo3334);wo33.setRequiredSkills(lswo33);
it breaks in worktime and required skill, and even so, it shows there in the result breaking everything T.T
2013/2/20 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
Problem solved (still I think so):
It was simpler (if i'm right):--------List<Skill> tempEngSkillList = new ArrayList<Skill>();for (SkillEngineer se : e.getSkillEngineerList()){tempEngSkillList.add(se.getSkill());}if (tempEngSkillList.containsAll(requiredSkillList)){hardScore += 1;}--------
the result:
Solved distribution with 10 work orders and 4 engineers:ID: 104[Skills: ABC 2,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 103[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 3,ABC 4,] - Denny(8)[Skills: ABC 2,ABC 1,ABC 3,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 105[Skills: ABC 2,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 102[Skills: ABC 2,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 101[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 4,] - Richard(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 107[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 3,] - Fabio(8)[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 1,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 106[Skills: ABC 1,] - Fabio(8)[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 1,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 108[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 4,] - Richard(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 109[Skills: ABC 3,] - Fabio(8)[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 1,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 110[Skills: ABC 1,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)
2013/2/20 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
Not fixed, i threw it on excel and make a comparison with expected results and there are 2 broken there. This is how it would be (feasible solution):
ID 101 - Engineer RichardID 102 - Engineer Andre
ID 103 - Engineer DennyID 104 - Engineer AndreID 105 - Engineer AndreID 106 - Engineer AndreID 107 - Engineer FabioID 108 - Engineer RichardID 109 - Engineer FabioID 110 - Engineer Fabio
this was the result:
Solved distribution with 10 work orders and 4 engineers:ID: 104[Skills: ABC 2,] - Richard(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 103[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 3,ABC 4,] - Denny(8)[Skills: ABC 2,ABC 1,ABC 3,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 105[Skills: ABC 2,] - Fabio(8)[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 1,] ------ Broken(1)ID: 102[Skills: ABC 2,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 101[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 4,] - Richard(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 107[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 3,] - Fabio(8)[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 1,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 106[Skills: ABC 1,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 108[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 4,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Broken(1)ID: 109[Skills: ABC 3,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Broken(1)ID: 110[Skills: ABC 1,] - Andre(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)
Still working on it, I accept any tips :D
2013/2/20 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
I think I fixed it, but the broken constraint is still showing, i don't know how to remove it. I did this:
verified if the engineer skill list had the same size or bigger than the requiredSkillList, iterate to check skills between both counting the matches and then, if the match was 100% to other, give the workorder
if (e.getSkillEngineerList().size() >= requiredSkillList.size()) {int temp = 0;for (SkillEngineer se : e.getSkillEngineerList()) {for (Skill s : requiredSkillList) {if (se.getSkill().getId() == s.getId()) {temp++;}}}if (temp == requiredSkillList.size()) {hardScore += 1;}}
2013/2/20 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
After some workaround I noticed that the workorders are not being 100% corretly distributed to, i've changed the scorecalculator to this:
int commonSkillCount = 0;for (Skill s : requiredSkillList){for (SkillEngineer se : e.getSkillEngineerList()){if (se.getSkill().getId() == s.getId()){commonSkillCount++;}}}
if ((commonSkillCount - e.getSkillEngineerList().size()) <= 0){hardScore += commonSkillCount;}
and I got the result
ID: 104[Skills: ABC 2,] - Trewq(8)[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 103[Skills: ABC 3,] - Trewq(8)[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 2,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 105[Skills: ABC 4,ABC 3,] - Poiuy(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 3,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 102[Skills: ABC 2,ABC 1,ABC 4,] - Qwert(8)[Skills: ABC 2,ABC 4,] ------ Broken(1)ID: 101[Skills: ABC 1,] - Lkjhg(8)[Skills: ABC 4,ABC 1,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 107[Skills: ABC 4,] - Lkjhg(8)[Skills: ABC 4,ABC 1,] ------ Feasible(0)ID: 106[Skills: ABC 1,] - Qwert(8)[Skills: ABC 2,ABC 4,] ------ Broken(1)ID: 108[Skills: ABC 3,ABC 2,] - Poiuy(8)[Skills: ABC 1,ABC 2,ABC 3,ABC 4,] ------ Feasible(0)
there's a workorder that woud be disconsidered because no engineer have the required skill to complete it
2013/2/19 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
I forgot to post the code:
public HardAndSoftScore calculateScore(Distributor distributor) {int hardScore = 0;int softScore = 0;for (Engineer e : distributor.getEngineerList()){long skill = e.getSkillEngineerList().get(0).getSkill().getId();int requiredWorktime = 0;List<Skill> requiredSkillList = new ArrayList<Skill>();for (WorkOrder o : distributor.getWorkOrderList()){if (e.equals(o.getEngineer())){requiredWorktime += o.getRequiredWorktime();for (SkillWorkOrder swo : o.getRequiredSkills()){requiredSkillList.add(swo.getSkill());}}}int engineerAvailableTime = e.getWorktime() - requiredWorktime;if (engineerAvailableTime < 0 ){hardScore += engineerAvailableTime;}int commonSkillCount = 0;for (SkillEngineer se : e.getSkillEngineerList()){for (Skill s : requiredSkillList){if (se.getSkill().getId() == s.getId()){commonSkillCount++;}}}if (commonSkillCount != 0){hardScore += commonSkillCount;}}
return DefaultHardAndSoftScore.valueOf(hardScore, softScore);}
( but i still want to try to create this in dsl rule after this work :D )
2013/2/19 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
I managed solving that problem even when there's more than one skill involved, but now my hard constraint of worktime breaks if I add more worktime than the sum of engineers worktime.
(8) is the worktime, my workorders all have a worktime of 4 hours, so, I got 32 available hours and 32 hours of workorders to be assigned right? When I stick to this plan, it works:
----Compilation Result----Solved distribution with 8 work orders and 4 engineers:ID: 104[Skills: (1002) ABC 2] - Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]ID: 103[Skills: (1003) ABC 3] - Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]ID: 105[Skills: (1004) ABC 4] - Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]ID: 102[Skills: (1002) ABC 2] - Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]ID: 101[Skills: (1001) ABC 1] - Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]ID: 107[Skills: (1004) ABC 4] - Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]ID: 106[Skills: (1001) ABC 1] - Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]ID: 108[Skills: (1003) ABC 3] - Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]---------------
So, if I add another worktime with 4 hours, it messes everything, this is the outcome:
Solved distribution with 9 work orders and 4 engineers:ID: 104[Skills: (1002) ABC 2] - Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]ID: 103[Skills: (1003) ABC 3] - Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]ID: 105[Skills: (1004) ABC 4] - Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]ID: 102[Skills: (1002) ABC 2] - Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]ID: 101[Skills: (1001) ABC 1] - Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]ID: 107[Skills: (1004) ABC 4] - Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]ID: 106[Skills: (1001) ABC 1] - Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]ID: 108[Skills: (1003) ABC 3] - Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]ID: 109[Skills: (1003) ABC 3] - Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]
------------
to be precise, i don't know if it is because of worktime or skill
2013/2/19 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
Just one correction, it is sorting correctly when there's one workorder with a skill, if there's another workorder with same skill, it doesn't sort that workorder to that skill.
This is what is happening:
Workorder skill ABC1 ------------ Engineer skill ABC1Workorder skill ABC2 ------------ Engineer skill ABC2
Workorder skill ABC1 ------------ Engineer skill ABC2
but if there's only one workorder with one skill it works:
Workorder skill ABC1 ------------ Engineer skill ABC1Workorder skill ABC2 ------------ Engineer skill ABC2
Workorder skill ABC3 ------------ Engineer skill ABC3
so, from the second workorder on, with a repeated required skill, it doesn't sort properly
2013/2/19 André Fróes <arfmoraes@gmail.com>
Hello, since i'm not moving a step from where I am at dsl rule, I'm trying to do it with SimpleScoreCalculator, but the same is happening.
------------public HardAndSoftScore calculateScore(Distributor distributor) {int hardScore = 0;int softScore = 0;for (Engineer e : distributor.getEngineerList()){long skill = e.getSkillEngineerList().get(0).getSkill().getId();int requiredWorktime = 0;long requiredSkill = 0l;for (WorkOrder o : distributor.getWorkOrderList()){if (e.equals(o.getEngineer())){requiredWorktime += o.getRequiredWorktime();requiredSkill = o.getRequiredSkills().get(0).getSkill().getId();}}int engineerAvailableTime = e.getWorktime() - requiredWorktime;if (engineerAvailableTime < 0 ){hardScore += engineerAvailableTime;}if (requiredSkill == skill){softScore += requiredSkill;}}return DefaultHardAndSoftScore.valueOf(hardScore, softScore);}------------
wouldn't that have to fit since i'm comparing the 1st attribute of each skill list from engineers and workorders? And how can I weight which engineer would be better to a determined workorder if the workorder have more skills and so does the engineer?
_______________________________________________ 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