Hi all, I migrated the repository from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final. The data was stored in Microsoft SQL Server database. I exported the repository from Drools 5.0 Guvnor and imported it back to Drools 5.3 Guvnor. After that I found that the order of the condition columns in the web-guided decision table were changed, and also the values for the conditions were misplaced. See the rule sources below. Is this a bug, or I didn’t use the right way to migrate the drools data between two versions? Thanks in advance, Jian Here is the source of the decision table in Drools 5.0: #from row number: 1 rule "Row 1 test" dialect "mvel" when consumerAction : ConsumerWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "true" ) accountAction : ConsumerAccountWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "true" ) consumerTag : ConsumerTagAssociationFact( hasAnyConsumerTagEM == "111" ) consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ) then consumerAction.setChangeStrategy( "222" ); consumerAction.setHoldConsumer( "true" ); accountAction.setAssignConsumerAccountTags( "333" ); end Here is the source of the decision table in Drools 5.3: #from row number: 1 2. | rule "Row 1 test" 3. | dialect "mvel" 4. | when 5. | consumerAction : ConsumerWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "true" ) 6. | consumerTag : ConsumerTagAssociationFact( hasAnyConsumerTagEM == "false" ) 7. | consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == true ) 8. | accountAction : ConsumerAccountWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "111" ) 9. | then 10. | consumerAction.setChangeStrategy( "222" ); 11. | consumerAction.setHoldConsumer( "true" ); 12. | accountAction.setAssignConsumerAccountTags( "333" ); 13. | end _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

Mike, Thanks for your response. I attached the repository_export.zip, which was generated by Drools 5.0 Guvnor Import/Export function. The decision table "Test" is in the default package. Please let me know if you have any problem to reproduce the issue. Thanks for your time, Jian ------------------------------ *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>; jian zhi < jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com&gt; *Sent:* Saturday, February 4, 2012 12:55 PM *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final What you describe is indeed peculiar. Are you able to provide your 5.0 export? Whilst the object model for guided decision tables did change for 5.2 the conversion simply copies data from the old model to the new on a one-to-one basis and the tests we have pass. Thanks, Mike sent on the move On 4 Feb 2012 16:37, "jian zhi" <jianpzhi(a)yahoo.com&gt; wrote: Hi all, I migrated the repository from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final. The data was stored in Microsoft SQL Server database. I exported the repository from Drools 5.0 Guvnor and imported it back to Drools 5.3 Guvnor. After that I found that the order of the condition columns in the web-guided decision table were changed, and also the values for the conditions were misplaced. See the rule sources below. Is this a bug, or I didn’t use the right way to migrate the drools data between two versions? Thanks in advance, Jian Here is the source of the decision table in Drools 5.0: #from row number: 1 rule "Row 1 test" dialect "mvel" when consumerAction : ConsumerWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "true" ) accountAction : ConsumerAccountWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "true" ) consumerTag : ConsumerTagAssociationFact( hasAnyConsumerTagEM == "111" ) consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ) then consumerAction.setChangeStrategy( "222" ); consumerAction.setHoldConsumer( "true" ); accountAction.setAssignConsumerAccountTags( "333" ); end Here is the source of the decision table in Drools 5.3: #from row number: 1 2. | rule "Row 1 test" 3. | dialect "mvel" 4. | when 5. | consumerAction : ConsumerWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "true" ) 6. | consumerTag : ConsumerTagAssociationFact( hasAnyConsumerTagEM == "false" ) 7. | consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == true ) 8. | accountAction : ConsumerAccountWorkActionFact( checkIfExist == "111" ) 9. | then 10. | consumerAction.setChangeStrategy( "222" ); 11. | consumerAction.setHoldConsumer( "true" ); 12. | accountAction.setAssignConsumerAccountTags( "333" ); 13. | end _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

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

Mike, Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3? Thanks, Jian ------------------------------ *From:* Michael Anstis <michael.anstis(a)gmail.com&gt; *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; *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&gt; 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