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: >Sorry to push Edson, > >The performance degradation from having the "parental check" in the RHS >versus the LHS is (expectedly) terrific. We have thousands of >"attributes" relating to different parent objects and having the rule >activate for every combination is causing performance problems. Moving >the RHS into a LHS "eval" would be no better either. > >On a different matter, I have successfully installed the source with >Maven (thanks Mark) and can debug trunk in Eclipse at home! > >With kind regards, > >Mike > >-----Original Message----- >From: Anstis, Michael (M.) >Sent: 14 March 2007 12:28 >To: 'Rules Users List' >Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? > >OK, Edson, I will try to check it out (I'm having problems accessing >subversion from work so will try from home). > >Whilst trying to implement a workaround though I may have discovered >another problem (which might have been fixed too):- > >rule "A" >when > MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) > $a2 : Attribute( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent == > > $m >) > $a3 : Attribute( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number, >parent == $m ) >then > System.out.println("Rule A"); //<-- Never fires >end > >rule "B" >when > MaterialEntry ( $m : material ) > $a2 : Attribute( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number ) > $a3 : Attribute( name == >Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number ) >Then > if($a2.getParent() == $m && $a3.getParent() == $m) { > System.out.println("Rule B"); //<-- Fires > } >end > >If the check for "parent" being equal across $m, $a2 and $a3 is in the >LHS the rule doesn't activate. However if check is in the RHS the rule >is OK. > >Any thoughts or views (Edson)? > >Thanks, > >Mike > >-----Original Message----- >From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org >[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli >Sent: 13 March 2007 22:57 >To: Rules Users List >Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem? > > > Mike, > > Yes, that is a "shadow fact unwanted side-effect" (nice name for a >bug hm? :) ), but I remember fixing something similar as part of > > another >ticket I was working on. Is it possible for you to verify if the > > problem >is happening in trunk? > If it is still hapenning, let me know and I will fix it. > > Thank you, > Edson > >Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote: > > > > > >>Hi, >> >>I am running 3.1-M1 and have (by way of example) two simple rules; A >>and B as follows:- >> >> *rule* "A" >> *when* >> $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_A, $pa : >> number ) >> $a2 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_B, $nc : >> number ) >> $p : Process ( attributesList* contains* $a1, >> attributesList* contains* $a2 ) >> *then* >> * double* txy = doSomeMaths($pa, $nc, $p); >> Attribute a =* new* Attribute(Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C, >> >> >> >> >txy); > > > > >> $p.addAttribute(a); >> * assertLogical*(a); >> * modify*($p); >> System.out.println("Rule 'A' fired"); >> *end* >> >> *rule* "B" >> *when* >> $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C, $txy : >> number) >> $p : Process( attributesList* contains* $a1 ) >> // <-- Line causing rule not to activate >> >> *then* >> * double* m = doSomeMoreMaths($txy, $p); >> System.out.println("Rule 'B' fired"); >> *end* >> >>Process exposes an ArrayList of Attribute objects (each having a >>name\value pair). >> >>When the content of the ArrayList held by Process is added to (Rule >>'A') the next rule (Rule 'B') is not being activated. >> >>Can anybody provide any insight into how best a workaround can be >>engineered? >> >>With kind regards, >> >>Mike >> >>---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> - >> >> >> >> >- > > > > >>_______________________________________________ >>rules-users mailing list &gt;&gt;rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >