Re: [rules-users] Problem with chained planning variables

Upgrade to 6.0.0.CR5 (follow the upgrade recipe txt) and take advantage of the new feature called "shadow variables" (see docs). Also see the VRP with timewindows example for an implementation that uses shadow variables :) On 25-10-13 00:27, Juan Ignacio Barisich wrote: Hi again. The problem was a score corruption issue. When I activate de mode debug: <environmentMode>DEBUG</environmentMode> some exceptions appear, like: java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score corruption: the workingScore (0hard/-35soft) is not the uncorruptedScore (0hard/-31soft)... I had to fix some rules, but I cant fix one in particular. When I looking at the example rules (with chained variables), the most are based only on the previous item of the chain, e.g.: rule "distanceToPreviousAppearance" when $visit : Visit(previousAppearance != null, $distanceToPreviousAppearance : distanceToPreviousAppearance) then insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("distanceToPreviousAppearance", ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, $distanceToPreviousAppearance, $visit)); end When optaplanner do the moves while planning, the IntConstraintOccurrence works ok, because the drools engine "retracts" the IntConstraintOccurrence facts properly. But, in my case the score caculation must be based on the entire chain. That is: I have some Doctors, and Cases (medical cases). I have to write a score rule for consider the delay of attention. So, each Case has a request time (when the patient calls) and a approximate duration of the case (in minutes). So, if I have the next chain: Doctor1 -> Case1 (requestTime:8am, duration:60minutes) -> Case2(requestTime:8:30am, duration:30minutes) -> Case3(requestTime:8:30am, duration:30minutes) the delay time for this solution must be: 30min(for Case2) + 60min(for Case3) = 90 minutes. As yo see, you can't calculate the delay of one Case only as from its previous on the chain. I must to implement a rule to calculate a soft constraint, to achive less-delay plannings. My first attempt looks like: rule "delaySC" when $case : Case( ) eval($case.getDelay() > 0) then insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("delaySC", ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT, $case.getDelay(), $case)); end I have to do an eval(), because a delay can not be negative. The getDelay() method process the chain and calculates it. The problem of this attempt, an other similars, is when the optaplanner engine do the moves while solving, the IntConstraintOccurrence is not retracted and the score corruption exception appears. The question is: ¿have you know similar scenarios, in which you have to process the entire chain to calculate the score of a solution? ¿is there a way to solve this? Thanks Regards 2013/9/2 Juan Ignacio Barisich <juan.barisich(a)gmail.com&gt; > Hi everybody. > I have a problem with chained planning variables. > I'm using optaplanner 5.5.0.Final. > I have a planning entity like: > > @PlanningEntity() > public class Case implements Chained { > private Chained previous; > @PlanningVariable(chained = true) > @ValueRanges({ > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY, > solutionProperty = "doctors"), > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY, > solutionProperty = "cases", excludeUninitializedPlanningEntity = true) }) > public Chained getPrevious() { > return previous; > } > } > > A fact class: > public class Doctor implements Chained { > ... > } > > An a solution class: > public class Plan extends implements Solution<HardAndSoftScore> { > private List<Doctor> doctors; > private List<Case> cases; > private HardAndSoftScore score; > > @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty > public List<Case> getCases() { > return cases; > } > > public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() { > return new ArrayList<Doctor>(doctors); > } > } > > The equals / hashCode / clone methods are inspired on the > TravelingSalesmanTour example. > > I want that Optaplanner generates chains like: > DoctorA <- Case1 <- Case2 > DoctorB <- Case3 > > This model tries to represent a list of Cases assigned to each Doctor. > Suppose I build a solution like: > > Plan plan = new Plan(); > plan.setDoctors(DoctorA, DoctorB); //pseudo-code > plan.setCases(Case1, Case2); //pseudo-code > > Then I build a solver: > Solver solver = getSolverFactory().buildSolver(); > solver.setPlanningProblem(plan); > solver.solve(); > Plan bestPlan = (Plan) solver.getBestSolution(); > > The problem is that, Optaplanner is not testing all the posible > combinations of chains. I mean, suppose that we know that the better > solution (based on the scoring rules) is: > DoctorA > DoctorB <- Case1 <- Case2 > > But Optaplanner seems to test only chains with DoctorA, so the result > of calling getBestSolution() is: > DoctorA <- Case1 <- Case2 > > I guess that Optaplanner only test chains whit DoctorA, becouse it logs > lines like: > ... > DEBUG: org.drools.planner.core.localsearch.DefaultLocalSearchSolverPhase > - Step index (1), time spend (20002), score (1hard/2soft), best > score (1hard/2soft), accepted/selected move count (0/58187) for picked step > (Case [id=2, previous=Doctor [id=1]] => Case [id=1, previous=Case [id=2, > previous=Doctor [id=1]]]). > ... > That is, no lines whith "DoctorB" are logged. > If the doctor list is inverted, the same problem happen (the DoctorA is > no processed). That is: > > Plan plan = new Plan(); > plan.setDoctors(DoctorB, DoctorA); //pseudo-code > plan.setCases(Case1, Case2); //pseudo-code > Solver solver = getSolverFactory().buildSolver(); > solver.setPlanningProblem(plan); > solver.solve(); // DoctorA is not part of chains > > > I guess the problem is on the solver configuration, specifically on the > localSearch configuration: > > <localSearch> > <unionMoveSelector> > <changeMoveSelector> > <valueSelector/> > </changeMoveSelector> > <swapMoveSelector /> > <subChainChangeMoveSelector> > <selectReversingMoveToo>true</selectReversingMoveToo> > </subChainChangeMoveSelector> > <subChainSwapMoveSelector> > <selectReversingMoveToo>true</selectReversingMoveToo> > </subChainSwapMoveSelector> > </unionMoveSelector> > <acceptor> > <planningEntityTabuSize>9</planningEntityTabuSize> > </acceptor> > <forager> > <minimalAcceptedSelection>2000</minimalAcceptedSelection> > </forager> > </localSearch> > > I tried some alternatives to this configuration, but with no success. > > Do you know what I am doing wrong? > > Thanks a lot. > > Regards > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing listrules-users@lists.jboss.orghttps://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