Mike,
Thanks for the quick response. I downloaded the war and tested the fix. The order of the
conditions are correct now. There is still a small problem in the last condition.
In Drools 5.0 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact(
hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ).
In Drools 5.3 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact(
hasAnyAccountClosed == false ). It displays a square check box in the cell.
Could you please take a look?
Thanks,
Jian
________________________________
From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
To: jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List
<rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
You can get a build containing the fix from Nexus:
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/index.html#nexus-search;gav~org.drools...
2012/2/8 jian zhi <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com>
Mike,
Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3?
Thanks,
Jian
________________________________
From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
The problem has existed since 5.2 and would potentially affect loading any earlier
version.
Prior to 5.2 the object model used by the guided decision table did not hold a Pattern to
which individual condition columns are bound.
The conversion code groups individual condition columns into the appropriate group and
moves the underlying column data accordingly (as there was no guarantee columns with the
same bound name were consecutive).
There was a problem with the creation and insertion of the new Pattern objects that relied
upon the order of entries in a HashMap being consistent. This has now changed.
I know others have been using the new guided decision table with old repositories without
problem and our unit tests did not detect the problem either.
AFAIK this is the first report of any such issue since the release of 5.2's betas,
however I would be wrong to say there is no risk.
sent on the move
On 8 Feb 2012 01:22, "vadlam" <sreeram.vadlamudi(a)wellsfargo.com> wrote:
does this issue happen for any previous version of Guvnor data such as 5.0
>or 5.1 or 5.2 exported and imported into a Guvnor 5.3 repository ?
>
>does this mean, we cannot rely on 5.3.0 version of Guvnor code when
>migrating data from a previous version and should rather apply the fix ?
>
>
>
>--
>View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Migrating-repository-data-f...
>Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com.
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users