12:02 p.m.
Hi,
I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
Constraints are:
- planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when not in
the air ;-)
- maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with specific
skills).
- techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the planningEntity.
But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific skills.
Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings variables to
the Task planningEntity:
1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
2) a Technicien-fact (?)
Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
technicien.
Do you think this second model is the right one?
Will it perform well?
=> ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
techniciens-availability and -skills.
Thanks in advance
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
3:08 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
Hi,
I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
Constraints are:
- planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when not in
the air ;-)
- maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with specific
skills).
- techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
planningEntity.
But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
the manyToOne relation.
So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific skills.
Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and their jobs
and the number of technicians needed by each job.
I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings variables to
the Task planningEntity:
1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
2) a Technicien-fact (?)
This is a planning variable.
You're assigning task to techinicians.
Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
one per required technician).
Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
technicien.
Yep, with constraints
Do you think this second model is the right one?
Will it perform well?
=> ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
techniciens-availability and -skills.
It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
the same job.
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
Thanks in advance
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
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
3:46 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Thank you for the response.
I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
One period every month.
We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is planned somewhere in
these 12 periods.
But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a specific period.
It has though a calendar of unavailability.
So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard constraint on period.
We need to find that combination with the best match between required skills for the job
and available technicians.
It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more skilled
technician is available.
I hope this is a bit clear.
So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
1) Period (List of 12 periods)
2) Technician
Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician (hard-constraint)
Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
Thank you.
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
Hi,
I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
Constraints are:
- planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when not in
the air ;-)
- maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with specific
skills).
- techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
planningEntity.
But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
the manyToOne relation.
So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific skills.
Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and their jobs
and the number of technicians needed by each job.
I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings variables to
the Task planningEntity:
1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
2) a Technicien-fact (?)
This is a planning variable.
You're assigning task to techinicians.
Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
one per required technician).
Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
technicien.
Yep, with constraints
Do you think this second model is the right one?
Will it perform well?
=> ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
techniciens-availability and -skills.
It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
the same job.
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
Thanks in advance
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
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
4:54 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Thank you for the response.
I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
One period every month.
We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
specific period.
It has though a calendar of unavailability.
So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
constraint on period.
We need to find that combination with the best match between required
skills for the job and available technicians.
It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
skilled technician is available.
I hope this is a bit clear.
So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
1) Period (List of 12 periods)
2) Technician
Good idea
Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
(hard-constraint)
I see 3:
- plane availability
- technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
- technician availability
Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
Thank you.
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
>
> I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> Constraints are:
> - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when not in
> the air ;-)
> - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with specific
> skills).
> - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
>
Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
planningEntity.
> But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
the manyToOne relation.
>
> So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
skills.
> Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and their jobs
and the number of technicians needed by each job.
I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
>
> If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
variables to
> the Task planningEntity:
> 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
This is a planning variable.
You're assigning task to techinicians.
Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
one per required technician).
Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
>
> Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> technicien.
Yep, with constraints
>
> Do you think this second model is the right one?
>
> Will it perform well?
> => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> techniciens-availability and -skills.
It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
the same job.
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
<http://nabble.com/>;.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
9:07 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Hi, me once more.
I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools (planning).
Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
I'm drifting, so please help...
I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number of planes,
periods and technicians to a very minimum.
I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and availability during a
period...
Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4 available periods
and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a solution in about 3 seconds.
Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3 results in an indefinite
solving time (I did not wait longer than a few minutes).
Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly under 3 seconds.
I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4 technicians per
maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about 400 available technicians..
So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
What I did:
I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning variables (technician
and period) and a simple rule file.
(See all below)
Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
Many thanks!!
PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
@PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass = TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
public class MaintenanceTask {
private Period period;
private Project project;
private Technician technician;
public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
this.project = aProject;
}
public String getId(){
return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY, solutionProperty =
"technicians")
public Technician getTechnician() {
return technician;
}
public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
this.technican= aTechnician;
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY, solutionProperty =
"periods")
public Period getPeriod() {
return period;
}
public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
this.period = aPeriod;
}
public String getPeriodId(){
return period == null ? null : period.getId();
}
public String getProjectId(){
return project == null ? null :project.getId();
}
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician= this.technician;
return clone;
}
}
Project.java
public class Project {
private Plane plane;
public Project(Plane aPlane) {
this.plane = aPlane;
}
public Plane getPlane() {
return plane;
}
public String getId() {
return getPlane().getName();
}
public int getTechnicianLoad(){
return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
}
public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
}
return tasks;
}
}
Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just classes having an getId
and getName method, nothing more.
Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of required technicians
for the maintenance.
This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<solver>
<!-- Domain model configuration -->
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
<!-- Score configuration -->
<scoreDirectorFactory>
<scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
<scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
</scoreDirectorFactory>
<termination>
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
</termination>
<constructionHeuristic>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
</constructionHeuristic>
<localSearch>
<selector>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
<!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of RowChangeMoveFactory:
-->
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
</selector>
<acceptor>
<solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
<planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
</acceptor>
<forager>
<minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
</forager>
</localSearch>
</solver>
this is the rules file:
package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
dialect "java"
import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
// ############################################################################
// Hard constraints
// ############################################################################
rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $technician : technician )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId, technician ==
$technician)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1, $t2));
end
rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $projectId : projectId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId == $projectId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1,
$t2));
end
// ############################################################################
// Calculate score
// ############################################################################
rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
when
$occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
$unweightedConstraintOccurrence : UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
)
then
scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
end
Solution file:
package be.axi.planner.domain;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;
import org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
private SimpleScore score;
private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
private List<Period> periods;
private List<Technician> technicians;
public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
clone.periods = this.periods;
clone.technicians = this.technicians;
List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
maintenanceTasks.size());
for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
}
clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
clone.score = this.score;
return clone;
}
public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
facts.addAll(periods);
facts.addAll(technicians);
// Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because that will be
done automatically
return facts;
}
public SimpleScore getScore() {
return this.score;
}
public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
this.score = aScore;
if (aScore != null){
System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
}
}
@PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
System.out.println("getting tasks: #" +maintenanceTasks.size());
return maintenanceTasks;
}
public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask> aMaintenanceTasks) {
System.out.println("setting tasks");
this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
}
public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
System.out.println("setting Technicians");
this.technicians = aTechnicians;
}
public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
return technicians;
}
public List<Period> getPeriods() {
System.out.println("getting periods");
return periods;
}
public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
this.periods = periods;
}
}
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Thank you for the response.
I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
One period every month.
We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
specific period.
It has though a calendar of unavailability.
So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
constraint on period.
We need to find that combination with the best match between required
skills for the job and available technicians.
It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
skilled technician is available.
I hope this is a bit clear.
So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
1) Period (List of 12 periods)
2) Technician
Good idea
Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
(hard-constraint)
I see 3:
- plane availability
- technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
- technician availability
Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
Thank you.
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
>
> I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> Constraints are:
> - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when not in
> the air ;-)
> - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with specific
> skills).
> - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
>
Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
planningEntity.
> But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
the manyToOne relation.
>
> So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
skills.
> Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and their jobs
and the number of technicians needed by each job.
I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
>
> If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
variables to
> the Task planningEntity:
> 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
This is a planning variable.
You're assigning task to techinicians.
Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
one per required technician).
Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
>
> Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> technicien.
Yep, with constraints
>
> Do you think this second model is the right one?
>
> Will it perform well?
> => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> techniciens-availability and -skills.
It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
the same job.
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
>
> Thanks in advance
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
<http://nabble.com/>;.
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
9:29 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi, me once more.
I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
(planning).
Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
I'm drifting, so please help...
I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
availability during a period...
Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
solution in about 3 seconds.
It probably stopped early because basically all
solutions had been seen.
Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than a few
minutes).
you got:
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
so it will run for over 11 minutes.
Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
termination methods).
The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
give it.
Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
under 3 seconds.
I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
400 available technicians..
So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
What I did:
I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
(See all below)
Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
Many thanks!!
PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
@PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
public class MaintenanceTask {
private Period period;
private Project project;
private Technician technician;
public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
this.project = aProject;
}
public String getId(){
return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "technicians")
public Technician getTechnician() {
return technician;
}
public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
this.technican= aTechnician;
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "periods")
public Period getPeriod() {
return period;
}
public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
this.period = aPeriod;
}
public String getPeriodId(){
return period == null ? null : period.getId();
}
public String getProjectId(){
return project == null ? null : project.getId();
}
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician= this.technician;
return clone;
}
}
Project.java
public class Project {
private Plane plane;
public Project(Plane aPlane) {
this.plane = aPlane;
}
public Plane getPlane() {
return plane;
}
public String getId() {
return getPlane().getName();
}
public int getTechnicianLoad(){
return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
}
public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
}
return tasks;
}
}
Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
required technicians for the maintenance.
This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<solver>
<!-- Domain model configuration -->
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
<!-- Score configuration -->
<scoreDirectorFactory>
<scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
<scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
</scoreDirectorFactory>
<termination>
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
</termination>
<constructionHeuristic>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
</constructionHeuristic>
<localSearch>
<selector>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
<!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
</selector>
<acceptor>
<solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
<planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
</acceptor>
<forager>
<minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
</forager>
</localSearch>
</solver>
this is the rules file:
package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
dialect "java"
import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
//
############################################################################
// Hard constraints
//
############################################################################
rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$technician : technician )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
technician == $technician)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1,
$t2));
end
rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$projectId : projectId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
$projectId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
end
//
############################################################################
// Calculate score
//
############################################################################
rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
when
$occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
$unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
)
then
scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
end
Solution file:
package be.axi.planner.domain;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;
import
org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
private SimpleScore score;
private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
private List<Period> periods;
private List<Technician> technicians;
public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
clone.periods = this.periods;
clone.technicians = this.technicians;
List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
maintenanceTasks.size());
for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
}
clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
clone.score = this.score;
return clone;
}
public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
facts.addAll(periods);
facts.addAll(technicians);
// Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
that will be done automatically
return facts;
}
public SimpleScore getScore() {
return this.score;
}
public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
this.score = aScore;
if (aScore != null){
System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
}
}
@PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
System.out.println("getting tasks: #" +maintenanceTasks.size());
return maintenanceTasks;
}
public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
aMaintenanceTasks) {
System.out.println("setting tasks");
this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
}
public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
System.out.println("setting Technicians");
this.technicians = aTechnicians;
}
public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
return technicians;
}
public List<Period> getPeriods() {
System.out.println("getting periods");
return periods;
}
public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
this.periods = periods;
}
}
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Thank you for the response.
> I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
>
> The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
>
> We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> One period every month.
>
> We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> specific period.
> It has though a calendar of unavailability.
>
> So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> constraint on period.
>
> We need to find that combination with the best match between required
> skills for the job and available technicians.
> It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
> skilled technician is available.
>
> I hope this is a bit clear.
>
> So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
>
> 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> 2) Technician
Good idea
>
> Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> (hard-constraint)
I see 3:
- plane availability
- technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
- technician availability
> Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
>
> Thank you.
>
> Michiel
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> >
> > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> > Constraints are:
> > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when
not in
> > the air ;-)
> > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
specific
> > skills).
> > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> >
>
> Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
>
> > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> planningEntity.
> > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
>
> I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
> the manyToOne relation.
>
> >
> > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
> skills.
> > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
>
> Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and their jobs
> and the number of technicians needed by each job.
>
> I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
> that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
> there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
>
> >
> > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> variables to
> > the Task planningEntity:
> > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
>
> I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
> It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
> requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
>
> > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> This is a planning variable.
> You're assigning task to techinicians.
> Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
> one per required technician).
> Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
>
> >
> > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> > technicien.
>
> Yep, with constraints
>
> >
> > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> >
> > Will it perform well?
> > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > techniciens-availability and -skills.
>
> It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
> to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
> the same job.
>
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
>
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
9:52 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
So basically what I do is correct?
I'm still curious why
a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
isTerminateEarly: false
score: 0
b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my planningEntities have no period
assigned; only a technician.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi, me once more.
I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
(planning).
Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
I'm drifting, so please help...
I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
availability during a period...
Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
solution in about 3 seconds.
It probably stopped early because basically all
solutions had been seen.
Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than a few
minutes).
you got:
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
so it will run for over 11 minutes.
Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
termination methods).
The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
give it.
Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
under 3 seconds.
I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
400 available technicians..
So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
What I did:
I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
(See all below)
Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
Many thanks!!
PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
@PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
public class MaintenanceTask {
private Period period;
private Project project;
private Technician technician;
public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
this.project = aProject;
}
public String getId(){
return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "technicians")
public Technician getTechnician() {
return technician;
}
public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
this.technican= aTechnician;
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "periods")
public Period getPeriod() {
return period;
}
public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
this.period = aPeriod;
}
public String getPeriodId(){
return period == null ? null : period.getId();
}
public String getProjectId(){
return project == null ? null : project.getId();
}
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician= this.technician;
return clone;
}
}
Project.java
public class Project {
private Plane plane;
public Project(Plane aPlane) {
this.plane = aPlane;
}
public Plane getPlane() {
return plane;
}
public String getId() {
return getPlane().getName();
}
public int getTechnicianLoad(){
return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
}
public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
}
return tasks;
}
}
Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
required technicians for the maintenance.
This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<solver>
<!-- Domain model configuration -->
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
<!-- Score configuration -->
<scoreDirectorFactory>
<scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
<scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
</scoreDirectorFactory>
<termination>
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
</termination>
<constructionHeuristic>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
</constructionHeuristic>
<localSearch>
<selector>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
<!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
</selector>
<acceptor>
<solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
<planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
</acceptor>
<forager>
<minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
</forager>
</localSearch>
</solver>
this is the rules file:
package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
dialect "java"
import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
//
############################################################################
// Hard constraints
//
############################################################################
rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$technician : technician )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
technician == $technician)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1,
$t2));
end
rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$projectId : projectId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
$projectId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
end
//
############################################################################
// Calculate score
//
############################################################################
rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
when
$occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
$unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
)
then
scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
end
Solution file:
package be.axi.planner.domain;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;
import
org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
private SimpleScore score;
private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
private List<Period> periods;
private List<Technician> technicians;
public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
clone.periods = this.periods;
clone.technicians = this.technicians;
List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
maintenanceTasks.size());
for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
}
clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
clone.score = this.score;
return clone;
}
public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
facts.addAll(periods);
facts.addAll(technicians);
// Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
that will be done automatically
return facts;
}
public SimpleScore getScore() {
return this.score;
}
public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
this.score = aScore;
if (aScore != null){
System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
}
}
@PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
System.out.println("getting tasks: #" +maintenanceTasks.size());
return maintenanceTasks;
}
public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
aMaintenanceTasks) {
System.out.println("setting tasks");
this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
}
public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
System.out.println("setting Technicians");
this.technicians = aTechnicians;
}
public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
return technicians;
}
public List<Period> getPeriods() {
System.out.println("getting periods");
return periods;
}
public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
this.periods = periods;
}
}
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Thank you for the response.
> I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
>
> The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
>
> We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> One period every month.
>
> We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> specific period.
> It has though a calendar of unavailability.
>
> So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> constraint on period.
>
> We need to find that combination with the best match between required
> skills for the job and available technicians.
> It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
> skilled technician is available.
>
> I hope this is a bit clear.
>
> So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
>
> 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> 2) Technician
Good idea
>
> Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> (hard-constraint)
I see 3:
- plane availability
- technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
- technician availability
> Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
>
> Thank you.
>
> Michiel
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> >
> > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> > Constraints are:
> > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when
not in
> > the air ;-)
> > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
specific
> > skills).
> > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> >
>
> Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
>
> > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> planningEntity.
> > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
>
> I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
> the manyToOne relation.
>
> >
> > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
> skills.
> > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
>
> Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and their jobs
> and the number of technicians needed by each job.
>
> I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
> that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
> there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
>
> >
> > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> variables to
> > the Task planningEntity:
> > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
>
> I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
> It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
> requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
>
> > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> This is a planning variable.
> You're assigning task to techinicians.
> Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
> one per required technician).
> Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
>
> >
> > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> > technicien.
>
> Yep, with constraints
>
> >
> > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> >
> > Will it perform well?
> > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > techniciens-availability and -skills.
>
> It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
> to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
> the same job.
>
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
>
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
10:19 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:52, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
How many periods does your Solution.getPeriods() return? 0?
enable logging on mode TRACE (see manual) and figure out what's going on.
10:52 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
My excuses,
The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the task.
My last change wasn't that great ;-)
Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
Trying now with 600 seconds...
Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
Thank you,
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
So basically what I do is correct?
I'm still curious why
a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
isTerminateEarly: false
score: 0
b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my planningEntities have no period
assigned; only a technician.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi, me once more.
I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
(planning).
Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
I'm drifting, so please help...
I have written a basic solution for planning
plane-maintenance.
I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the
number
of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
availability during a period...
Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
solution in about 3 seconds.
It probably stopped early because basically all
solutions had been seen.
Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than a few
minutes).
you got:
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
so it will run for over 11 minutes.
Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
termination methods).
The problem is NP-complete, so as
you scale up to thousands (and more)
planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
give it.
Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
under 3 seconds.
I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
400 available technicians..
So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
What I did:
I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
(See all below)
Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
Can you please advice me in what I am
doing wrong?
Many thanks!!
PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
@PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
public class MaintenanceTask {
private Period period;
private Project project;
private Technician technician;
public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
this.project = aProject;
}
public String getId(){
return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "technicians")
public Technician getTechnician() {
return technician;
}
public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
this.technican= aTechnician;
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "periods")
public Period getPeriod() {
return period;
}
public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
this.period = aPeriod;
}
public String getPeriodId(){
return period == null ? null :
period.getId();
}
public String getProjectId(){
return project == null ? null : project.getId();
}
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician= this.technician;
return clone;
}
}
Project.java
public class Project {
private Plane plane;
public Project(Plane aPlane) {
this.plane = aPlane;
}
public Plane getPlane() {
return plane;
}
public String getId() {
return getPlane().getName();
}
public int getTechnicianLoad(){
return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
}
public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
}
return tasks;
}
}
Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
required technicians for the maintenance.
This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<solver>
<!-- Domain model configuration -->
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
<!-- Score configuration -->
<scoreDirectorFactory>
<scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
<scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
</scoreDirectorFactory>
<termination>
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
</termination>
<constructionHeuristic>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
</constructionHeuristic>
<localSearch>
<selector>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
<!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
</selector>
<acceptor>
<solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
<planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
</acceptor>
<forager>
<minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
</forager>
</localSearch>
</solver>
this is the rules file:
package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
dialect "java"
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
//
############################################################################
// Hard constraints
//
############################################################################
rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$technician : technician )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId
== $periodId,
technician == $technician)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1,
$t2));
end
rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$projectId : projectId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
$projectId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
end
//
############################################################################
// Calculate score
//
############################################################################
rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
when
$occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
$unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
)
then
scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
end
Solution file:
package be.axi.planner.domain;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;
import
org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
private SimpleScore score;
private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
private List<Period> periods;
private List<Technician> technicians;
public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
clone.periods = this.periods;
clone.technicians = this.technicians;
List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
maintenanceTasks.size());
for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
}
clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
clone.score = this.score;
return clone;
}
public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
facts.addAll(periods);
facts.addAll(technicians);
// Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
that will be done automatically
return facts;
}
public SimpleScore getScore() {
return this.score;
}
public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
this.score = aScore;
if (aScore != null){
System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
}
}
@PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
public List<MaintenanceTask>
getMaintenanceTasks() {
System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
return maintenanceTasks;
}
public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
aMaintenanceTasks) {
System.out.println("setting tasks");
this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
}
public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
System.out.println("setting Technicians");
this.technicians = aTechnicians;
}
public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
System.out.println("Getting Technicians:
#"+technicians.size());
return technicians;
}
public List<Period> getPeriods() {
System.out.println("getting periods");
return periods;
}
public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
this.periods = periods;
}
}
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Thank you for the response.
> I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
>
> The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
>
> We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> One period every month.
>
> We need to make the
planning in such way that the list of planes is
> planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> specific period.
> It has though a calendar of unavailability.
>
> So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> constraint on period.
>
> We need to find that combination with the best match between required
> skills for the job and available technicians.
> It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
> skilled technician is available.
>
> I hope this is a bit clear.
>
> So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
>
> 1) Period (List
of 12 periods)
> 2) Technician
Good idea
>
> Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> (hard-constraint)
I see 3:
- plane availability
- technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
- technician availability
> Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
>
> Thank you.
>
> Michiel
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 30-08-12
18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> >
> > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> > Constraints are:
> > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when
not in
> > the air ;-)
> > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
specific
> > skills).
> > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> >
>
> Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> The
difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
>
> > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> planningEntity.
> > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
>
> I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
> the manyToOne relation.
>
> >
> > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
> skills.
> > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
>
> Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> You can generate all Tasks in advance based
on the Planes and their jobs
> and the number of technicians needed by each job.
>
> I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
> that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
> there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
>
> >
> > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> variables to
> > the Task planningEntity:
> > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
>
> I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
> It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
>
requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
>
> > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> This is a planning variable.
> You're assigning task to techinicians.
> Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
> one per required technician).
> Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
>
> >
> > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> > technicien.
>
> Yep, with constraints
>
> >
> > Do you think this second model is the right
one?
> >
> > Will it perform well?
> > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > techniciens-availability and -skills.
>
> It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
> to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
> the same job.
>
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
>
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> <http://nabble.com/>;.
> >
_______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
11:08 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough technicians to plan all
maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then the planner does
not come up with a feasible solution.
Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance tasks were planned on
P2 or P3...
Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
Thanks
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
My excuses,
The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the task.
My last change wasn't that great ;-)
Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
Trying now with 600 seconds...
Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
Thank you,
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
So basically what I do is correct?
I'm still curious why
a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
isTerminateEarly: false
score: 0
b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my planningEntities have no period
assigned; only a technician.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi, me once more.
I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
(planning).
Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
I'm drifting, so please help...
I have written a basic solution for planning
plane-maintenance.
I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the
number
of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
availability during a period...
Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
solution in about 3 seconds.
It probably stopped early because basically all
solutions had been seen.
Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than a few
minutes).
you got:
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
so it will run for over 11 minutes.
Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
termination methods).
The problem is NP-complete, so as
you scale up to thousands (and more)
planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
give it.
Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
under 3 seconds.
I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
400 available technicians..
So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
What I did:
I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
(See all below)
Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
Can you please advice me in what I am
doing wrong?
Many thanks!!
PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
@PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
public class MaintenanceTask {
private Period period;
private Project project;
private Technician technician;
public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
this.project = aProject;
}
public String getId(){
return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "technicians")
public Technician getTechnician() {
return technician;
}
public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
this.technican= aTechnician;
}
@PlanningVariable
@ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
solutionProperty = "periods")
public Period getPeriod() {
return period;
}
public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
this.period = aPeriod;
}
public String getPeriodId(){
return period == null ? null :
period.getId();
}
public String getProjectId(){
return project == null ? null : project.getId();
}
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician= this.technician;
return clone;
}
}
Project.java
public class Project {
private Plane plane;
public Project(Plane aPlane) {
this.plane = aPlane;
}
public Plane getPlane() {
return plane;
}
public String getId() {
return getPlane().getName();
}
public int getTechnicianLoad(){
return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
}
public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
}
return tasks;
}
}
Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
required technicians for the maintenance.
This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<solver>
<!-- Domain model configuration -->
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
<!-- Score configuration -->
<scoreDirectorFactory>
<scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
<scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
</scoreDirectorFactory>
<termination>
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
</termination>
<constructionHeuristic>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
</constructionHeuristic>
<localSearch>
<selector>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
<!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
</selector>
<acceptor>
<solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
<planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
</acceptor>
<forager>
<minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
</forager>
</localSearch>
</solver>
this is the rules file:
package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
dialect "java"
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
//
############################################################################
// Hard constraints
//
############################################################################
rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$technician : technician )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId
== $periodId,
technician == $technician)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1,
$t2));
end
rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
$projectId : projectId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
$projectId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
end
//
############################################################################
// Calculate score
//
############################################################################
rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
when
$occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
$unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
)
then
scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
end
Solution file:
package be.axi.planner.domain;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Collection;
import java.util.List;
import
org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
import
org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
private SimpleScore score;
private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
private List<Period> periods;
private List<Technician> technicians;
public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
clone.periods = this.periods;
clone.technicians = this.technicians;
List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
maintenanceTasks.size());
for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
}
clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
clone.score = this.score;
return clone;
}
public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
facts.addAll(periods);
facts.addAll(technicians);
// Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
that will be done automatically
return facts;
}
public SimpleScore getScore() {
return this.score;
}
public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
this.score = aScore;
if (aScore != null){
System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
}
}
@PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
public List<MaintenanceTask>
getMaintenanceTasks() {
System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
return maintenanceTasks;
}
public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
aMaintenanceTasks) {
System.out.println("setting tasks");
this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
}
public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
System.out.println("setting Technicians");
this.technicians = aTechnicians;
}
public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
System.out.println("Getting Technicians:
#"+technicians.size());
return technicians;
}
public List<Period> getPeriods() {
System.out.println("getting periods");
return periods;
}
public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
this.periods = periods;
}
}
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Thank you for the response.
> I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
>
> The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
>
> We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> One period every
month.
>
> We need to make the
planning in such way that the list of planes is
> planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> specific period.
> It has though a calendar of unavailability.
>
> So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> constraint on period.
>
> We need to find that combination with the best match between required
> skills for the job and available technicians.
> It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
> skilled technician is available.
>
> I hope this is a bit clear.
>
> So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
>
> 1) Period (List
of 12 periods)
> 2) Technician
Good idea
>
> Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> (hard-constraint)
I see 3:
- plane availability
- technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
- technician availability
> Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
>
> Thank you.
>
> Michiel
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> *Subject:*
Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 30-08-12
18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> >
> > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> > Constraints are:
> > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when
not in
> > the air ;-)
> > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
specific
> > skills).
> > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> >
>
> Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> The
difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
>
> > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> planningEntity.
> > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
>
> I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one side of
> the manyToOne relation.
>
> >
> > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
> skills.
> > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
>
> Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> You can generate all Tasks in advance based
on the Planes and their jobs
> and the number of technicians needed by each job.
>
> I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
> that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse rostering
> there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
>
> >
> > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> variables to
> > the Task planningEntity:
> > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
>
> I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
> It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of sort of
>
requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
>
> > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> This is a planning variable.
> You're assigning task to techinicians.
> Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
> one per required technician).
> Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
>
> >
> > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> > technicien.
>
> Yep, with constraints
>
> >
> > Do you think this second model is the right
one?
> >
> > Will it perform well?
> > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > techniciens-availability and -skills.
>
> It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
> to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different tasks on
> the same job.
>
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
>
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
> <http://nabble.com/>;.
> >
_______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
11:43 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Add a generic swap move factory too, if you haven't already.
change move factory alone doesn't suffice
Op 31-08-12 17:08, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough
technicians to plan all maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then
the planner does not come up with a feasible solution.
Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance
tasks were planned on P2 or P3...
Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
Thanks
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
My excuses,
The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the task.
My last change wasn't that great ;-)
Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
Trying now with 600 seconds...
Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
Thank you,
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
So basically what I do is correct?
I'm still curious why
a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
isTerminateEarly: false
score: 0
b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Hi, me once more.
>
> I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
> (planning).
> Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
> I'm drifting, so please help...
>
> I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
> I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
> of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
> I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
> availability during a period...
>
> Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
> available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
> solution in about 3 seconds.
It probably stopped early because basically all solutions had been seen.
> Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
> results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than a few
> minutes).
you got:
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
so it will run for over 11 minutes.
Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
termination methods).
The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
give it.
> Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
> under 3 seconds.
>
> I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
> technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
> 400 available technicians..
> So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
>
> What I did:
>
> I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
> variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
> (See all below)
> Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
>
> Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
>
> Many thanks!!
>
> PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
>
> @PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
> TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
> public class MaintenanceTask {
>
> private Period period;
> private Project project;
> private Technician technician;
>
> public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
> this.project = aProject;
> }
>
> public String getId(){
> return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
> }
>
> @PlanningVariable
> @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> solutionProperty = "technicians")
> public Technician getTechnician() {
> return technician;
> }
>
> public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
> this.technican= aTechnician;
> }
>
> @PlanningVariable
> @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> solutionProperty = "periods")
> public Period getPeriod() {
> return period;
> }
>
> public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
> this.period = aPeriod;
> }
>
> public String getPeriodId(){
> return period == null ? null : period.getId();
> }
>
> public String getProjectId(){
> return project == null ? null : project.getId();
> }
>
> public MaintenanceTask clone() {
> MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
> clone.period = this.period;
> clone.technician= this.technician;
> return clone;
> }
>
> }
>
> Project.java
>
> public class Project {
> private Plane plane;
>
> public Project(Plane aPlane) {
> this.plane = aPlane;
> }
>
> public Plane getPlane() {
> return plane;
> }
>
> public String getId() {
> return getPlane().getName();
> }
>
> public int getTechnicianLoad(){
> return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
> }
>
> public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
> List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
> for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
> tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
> }
> return tasks;
> }
> }
>
> Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
> classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
> Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
> required technicians for the maintenance.
>
> This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <solver>
> <!-- Domain model configuration -->
>
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
>
>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
>
> <!-- Score configuration -->
> <scoreDirectorFactory>
> <scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
> <scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
> </scoreDirectorFactory>
>
> <termination>
> <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> </termination>
>
> <constructionHeuristic>
>
>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
>
>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
> </constructionHeuristic>
> <localSearch>
> <selector>
>
>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
> <!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
> RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
>
>
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
> </selector>
> <acceptor>
> <solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
> <planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
> </acceptor>
> <forager>
> <minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
> </forager>
> </localSearch>
> </solver>
>
> this is the rules file:
>
> package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
> dialect "java"
>
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
> import
> org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
>
> import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
>
> global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
>
> //
>
############################################################################
> // Hard constraints
> //
>
############################################################################
>
> rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> $technician : technician )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
> technician == $technician)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1,
> $t2));
> end
>
> rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> $projectId : projectId )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
> $projectId)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
> $t1, $t2));
> end
>
> //
>
############################################################################
> // Calculate score
> //
>
############################################################################
>
> rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
> when
> $occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
> $unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
> count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
> )
> then
> scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
> end
>
> Solution file:
>
> package be.axi.planner.domain;
>
> import java.util.ArrayList;
> import java.util.Collection;
> import java.util.List;
>
> import
> org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
> import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
>
>
> public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
>
> private SimpleScore score;
> private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
> private List<Period> periods;
> private List<Technician> technicians;
>
> public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
> MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
> clone.periods = this.periods;
> clone.technicians = this.technicians;
> List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
> maintenanceTasks.size());
> for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
> MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
> clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
> }
> clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
> clone.score = this.score;
>
> return clone;
> }
>
> public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
> System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
> List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
> facts.addAll(periods);
> facts.addAll(technicians);
> // Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
> that will be done automatically
> return facts;
> }
>
> public SimpleScore getScore() {
> return this.score;
> }
>
> public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
> this.score = aScore;
> if (aScore != null){
> System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
> }
> }
>
> @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
> public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
> System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
> return maintenanceTasks;
> }
>
> public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
> aMaintenanceTasks) {
> System.out.println("setting tasks");
> this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
> }
>
> public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
> System.out.println("setting Technicians");
> this.technicians = aTechnicians;
> }
>
> public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
> System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
> return technicians;
> }
>
> public List<Period> getPeriods() {
> System.out.println("getting periods");
> return periods;
> }
>
> public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
> this.periods = periods;
> }
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > Thank you for the response.
> > I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
> >
> > The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
> >
> > We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> > One period every month.
> >
> > We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> > planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> > But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> > specific period.
> > It has though a calendar of unavailability.
> >
> > So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> > constraint on period.
> >
> > We need to find that combination with the best match between required
> > skills for the job and available technicians.
> > It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
> > skilled technician is available.
> >
> > I hope this is a bit clear.
> >
> > So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
> >
> > 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> > 2) Technician
>
> Good idea
>
> >
> > Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> > (hard-constraint)
> I see 3:
> - plane availability
> - technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
> - technician availability
> > Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
>
> yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Michiel
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> -
Your essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>
> > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> > >
> > > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> > > Constraints are:
> > > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when
> not in
> > > the air ;-)
> > > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
> specific
> > > skills).
> > > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> > In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> > The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> >
> > > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> > planningEntity.
> > > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
> >
> > I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one
side of
> > the manyToOne relation.
> >
> > >
> > > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
> > skills.
> > > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
> >
> > Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> > You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and
their jobs
> > and the number of technicians needed by each job.
> >
> > I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
> > that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse
rostering
> > there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
> >
> > >
> > > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> > variables to
> > > the Task planningEntity:
> > > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
> >
> > I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
> > It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of
sort of
> > requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> >
> > > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> > This is a planning variable.
> > You're assigning task to techinicians.
> > Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
> > one per required technician).
> > Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> > constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
> >
> > >
> > > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> > > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> > > technicien.
> >
> > Yep, with constraints
> >
> > >
> > > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> > >
> > > Will it perform well?
> > > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > > techniciens-availability and -skills.
> >
> > It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> > In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
> > to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different
tasks on
> > the same job.
> >
> >
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> >
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> > <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
12:17 p.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Hi,
I did not add it yet (no clue of what it all means... two days ago I never even heart of
Drools Planner (or other planners)).
I added it now, but it does not change a thing.
I added some logging and I saw that other periods do get thrown into the equation, though
they never make it to the best solution.
Forgive me for my persistent nagging, but I do keep the feeling that something is wrong.
The planner does not find a solution with score 0 in 10 minutes and I can - on sight - in
less than a few seconds (given the current amount of data (planes, technicians, periods
).
Failing plan-attempt:
I have 4 (non-overlapping) available periods and three planes to maintain.
plane 1 needs 5 techs
plane 2 needs 3 techs
plane 3 needs 3 techs
10 techs are available, all the time.
Planner takes 10 minutes to come up with score -2 (1 tech double planned).
though solution is that simple.
Plane 1 => Period 1, use 5 techs (choose any set of 5)
Plane 2 => Period 2, use 3 techs
Plane 3 => Period 3, use 3 techs
That is only one of the x optimal solutions.
It seems so easy...
Well...
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Add a generic swap move factory too, if you haven't already.
change move factory alone doesn't suffice
Op 31-08-12 17:08, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough
technicians to plan all maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then
the planner does not come up with a feasible solution.
Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance
tasks were planned on P2 or P3...
Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
Thanks
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
My excuses,
The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the task.
My last change wasn't that great ;-)
Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
Trying now with 600 seconds...
Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
Thank you,
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
So basically what I do is correct?
I'm still curious why
a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
isTerminateEarly: false
score: 0
b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Hi, me once more.
>
> I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
> (planning).
> Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
> I'm drifting, so please help...
>
> I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
> I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
> of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
> I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
> availability during a period...
>
> Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
> available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
> solution in about 3 seconds.
It probably stopped early because basically all solutions had been seen.
> Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
> results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than a few
> minutes).
you got:
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
so it will run for over 11 minutes.
Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
termination methods).
The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
give it.
> Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
> under 3 seconds.
>
> I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
> technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
> 400 available technicians..
> So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
>
> What I did:
>
> I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
> variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
> (See all below)
> Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
>
> Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
>
> Many thanks!!
>
> PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
>
> @PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
> TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
> public class MaintenanceTask {
>
> private Period period;
> private Project project;
> private Technician technician;
>
> public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
> this.project = aProject;
> }
>
> public String getId(){
> return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
> }
>
> @PlanningVariable
> @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> solutionProperty = "technicians")
> public Technician getTechnician() {
> return technician;
> }
>
> public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
> this.technican= aTechnician;
> }
>
> @PlanningVariable
> @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> solutionProperty = "periods")
> public Period getPeriod() {
> return period;
> }
>
> public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
> this.period = aPeriod;
> }
>
> public String getPeriodId(){
> return period == null ? null : period.getId();
> }
>
> public String getProjectId(){
> return project == null ? null : project.getId();
> }
>
> public MaintenanceTask clone() {
> MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
> clone.period = this.period;
> clone.technician= this.technician;
> return clone;
> }
>
> }
>
> Project.java
>
> public class Project {
> private Plane plane;
>
> public Project(Plane aPlane) {
> this.plane = aPlane;
> }
>
> public Plane getPlane() {
> return plane;
> }
>
> public String getId() {
> return getPlane().getName();
> }
>
> public int getTechnicianLoad(){
> return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
> }
>
> public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
> List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
> for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
> tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
> }
> return tasks;
> }
> }
>
> Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
> classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
> Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
> required technicians for the maintenance.
>
> This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <solver>
> <!-- Domain model configuration -->
>
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
>
>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
>
> <!-- Score configuration -->
> <scoreDirectorFactory>
> <scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
> <scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
> </scoreDirectorFactory>
>
> <termination>
> <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> </termination>
>
> <constructionHeuristic>
>
>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
>
>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
> </constructionHeuristic>
> <localSearch>
> <selector>
>
>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
> <!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
> RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
>
>
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
> </selector>
> <acceptor>
> <solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
> <planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
> </acceptor>
> <forager>
> <minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
> </forager>
> </localSearch>
> </solver>
>
> this is the rules file:
>
> package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
> dialect "java"
>
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
> import
> org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
>
> import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
>
> global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
>
> //
>
############################################################################
> // Hard constraints
> //
>
############################################################################
>
> rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> $technician : technician )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
> technician == $technician)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1,
> $t2));
> end
>
> rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> $projectId : projectId )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
> $projectId)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
> $t1, $t2));
> end
>
> //
>
############################################################################
> // Calculate score
> //
>
############################################################################
>
> rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
> when
> $occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
> $unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
> count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
> )
> then
> scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
> end
>
> Solution file:
>
> package be.axi.planner.domain;
>
> import java.util.ArrayList;
> import java.util.Collection;
> import java.util.List;
>
> import
> org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
> import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
>
>
> public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
>
> private SimpleScore score;
> private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
> private List<Period> periods;
> private List<Technician> technicians;
>
> public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
> MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
> clone.periods = this.periods;
> clone.technicians = this.technicians;
> List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
> maintenanceTasks.size());
> for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
> MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
> clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
> }
> clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
> clone.score = this.score;
>
> return clone;
> }
>
> public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
> System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
> List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
> facts.addAll(periods);
> facts.addAll(technicians);
> // Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
> that will be done automatically
> return facts;
> }
>
> public SimpleScore getScore() {
> return this.score;
> }
>
> public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
> this.score = aScore;
> if (aScore != null){
> System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
> }
> }
>
> @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
> public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
> System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
> return maintenanceTasks;
> }
>
> public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
> aMaintenanceTasks) {
> System.out.println("setting tasks");
> this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
> }
>
> public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
> System.out.println("setting Technicians");
> this.technicians = aTechnicians;
> }
>
> public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
> System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
> return technicians;
> }
>
> public List<Period> getPeriods() {
> System.out.println("getting periods");
> return periods;
> }
>
> public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
> this.periods = periods;
> }
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > Thank you for the response.
> > I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
> >
> > The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
> >
> > We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> > One period every month.
> >
> > We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> > planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> > But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> > specific period.
> > It has though a calendar of unavailability.
> >
> > So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> > constraint on period.
> >
> > We need to find that combination with the best match between required
> > skills for the job and available technicians.
> > It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
> > skilled technician is available.
> >
> > I hope this is a bit clear.
> >
> > So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
> >
> > 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> > 2) Technician
>
> Good idea
>
> >
> > Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> > (hard-constraint)
> I see 3:
> - plane availability
> - technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
> - technician availability
> > Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
>
> yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Michiel
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> -
Your essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>
> > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> > >
> > > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> > > Constraints are:
> > > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when
> not in
> > > the air ;-)
> > > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
> specific
> > > skills).
> > > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> > In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> > The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> >
> > > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> > planningEntity.
> > > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
> >
> > I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one
side of
> > the manyToOne relation.
> >
> > >
> > > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
> > skills.
> > > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
> >
> > Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> > You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and
their jobs
> > and the number of technicians needed by each job.
> >
> > I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
> > that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse
rostering
> > there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
> >
> > >
> > > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> > variables to
> > > the Task planningEntity:
> > > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
> >
> > I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
> > It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of
sort of
> > requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> >
> > > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> > This is a planning variable.
> > You're assigning task to techinicians.
> > Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
> > one per required technician).
> > Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> > constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
> >
> > >
> > > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> > > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> > > technicien.
> >
> > Yep, with constraints
> >
> > >
> > > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> > >
> > > Will it perform well?
> > > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > > techniciens-availability and -skills.
> >
> > It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> > In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
> > to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different
tasks on
> > the same job.
> >
> >
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> >
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> > <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
2:45 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet
Op 31-08-12 18:17, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi,
I did not add it yet (no clue of what it all means... two days ago I
never even heart of Drools Planner (or other planners)).
I added it now, but it does not change a thing.
I added some logging and I saw that other periods do get thrown into the
equation, though they never make it to the best solution.
Forgive me for my persistent nagging, but I do keep the feeling that
something is wrong.
Yes, there's definitely something wrong. It's just hard to diagnose with
the info given without going through it all in detail.
You need to take a look at the planner log and figure out why it's not
doing the moves that you would expect it to make.
Read in the manual about a "score trap", you might be experiencing that.
The score of -2 (instead of -1) could be signal of it being stuck in a
"score trap".
The planner does not find a solution with score 0 in 10 minutes and I
can - on sight - in less than a few seconds (given the current amount of
data (planes, technicians, periods ).
If implemented correctly, it will find a solution faster than a human on
any case.
Failing plan-attempt:
I have 4 (non-overlapping) available periods and three planes to maintain.
plane 1 needs 5 techs
plane 2 needs 3 techs
plane 3 needs 3 techs
10 techs are available, all the time.
Planner takes 10 minutes to come up with score -2 (1 tech double planned).
though solution is that simple.
Plane 1 => Period 1, use 5 techs (choose any set of 5)
Plane 2 => Period 2, use 3 techs
Plane 3 => Period 3, use 3 techs
That is only one of the x optimal solutions.
It seems so easy...
Well...
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 5:43 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Add a generic swap move factory too, if you haven't already.
change move factory alone doesn't suffice
Op 31-08-12 17:08, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
>
> It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
>
> The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough
> technicians to plan all maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
> The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then
> the planner does not come up with a feasible solution.
> Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance
> tasks were planned on P2 or P3...
>
> Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
>
> Thanks
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com
<mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> My excuses,
>
> The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the
task.
> My last change wasn't that great ;-)
>
> Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
> A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
>
> Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
> Trying now with 600 seconds...
>
> Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
> So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michiel
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com
<mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
>
> So basically what I do is correct?
>
> I'm still curious why
> a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
> isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
> isTerminateEarly: false
> score: 0
>
> b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
>
> I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
> After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
> planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
>
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > Hi, me once more.
> >
> > I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
> > (planning).
> > Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
> > I'm drifting, so please help...
> >
> > I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
> > I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
> > of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
> > I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
> > availability during a period...
> >
> > Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
> > available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
> > solution in about 3 seconds.
> It probably stopped early because basically all solutions had been seen.
>
> > Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
> > results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than
a few
> > minutes).
> you got:
> <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> so it will run for over 11 minutes.
> Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
> termination methods).
>
> The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
> planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
> find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
> manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
> give it.
>
> > Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
> > under 3 seconds.
> >
> > I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
> > technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
> > 400 available technicians..
> > So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
> >
> > What I did:
> >
> > I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
> > variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
> > (See all below)
> > Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
> >
> > Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
> >
> > Many thanks!!
> >
> > PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
> >
> > @PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
> > TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
> > public class MaintenanceTask {
> >
> > private Period period;
> > private Project project;
> > private Technician technician;
> >
> > public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
> > this.project = aProject;
> > }
> >
> > public String getId(){
> > return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningVariable
> > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > solutionProperty = "technicians")
> > public Technician getTechnician() {
> > return technician;
> > }
> >
> > public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
> > this.technican= aTechnician;
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningVariable
> > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > solutionProperty = "periods")
> > public Period getPeriod() {
> > return period;
> > }
> >
> > public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
> > this.period = aPeriod;
> > }
> >
> > public String getPeriodId(){
> > return period == null ? null : period.getId();
> > }
> >
> > public String getProjectId(){
> > return project == null ? null : project.getId();
> > }
> >
> > public MaintenanceTask clone() {
> > MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
> > clone.period = this.period;
> > clone.technician= this.technician;
> > return clone;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > Project.java
> >
> > public class Project {
> > private Plane plane;
> >
> > public Project(Plane aPlane) {
> > this.plane = aPlane;
> > }
> >
> > public Plane getPlane() {
> > return plane;
> > }
> >
> > public String getId() {
> > return getPlane().getName();
> > }
> >
> > public int getTechnicianLoad(){
> > return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
> > }
> >
> > public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
> > List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
> > for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
> > tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
> > }
> > return tasks;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
> > classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
> > Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
> > required technicians for the maintenance.
> >
> > This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <solver>
> > <!-- Domain model configuration -->
> >
>
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
> >
> >
>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
> >
> > <!-- Score configuration -->
> > <scoreDirectorFactory>
> > <scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
> > <scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
> > </scoreDirectorFactory>
> >
> > <termination>
> > <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> > </termination>
> >
> > <constructionHeuristic>
> >
> >
>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
> >
> >
>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
> > </constructionHeuristic>
> > <localSearch>
> > <selector>
> >
> >
>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
> > <!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
> > RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
> >
> >
>
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
> > </selector>
> > <acceptor>
> > <solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
> > <planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
> > </acceptor>
> > <forager>
> > <minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
> > </forager>
> > </localSearch>
> > </solver>
> >
> > this is the rules file:
> >
> > package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
> > dialect "java"
> >
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
> > import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
> > import
> >
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
> >
> > import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
> >
> > global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
> >
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> > // Hard constraints
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> >
> > rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
> > when
> > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > $technician : technician )
> > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
> > technician == $technician)
> > then
> > insertLogical(new
> > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod",
$t1,
> > $t2));
> > end
> >
> > rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
> > when
> > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > $projectId : projectId )
> > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
> > $projectId)
> > then
> > insertLogical(new
> >
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
> > $t1, $t2));
> > end
> >
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> > // Calculate score
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> >
> > rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
> > when
> > $occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
> > $unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
> > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
> > count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
> > )
> > then
> > scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
> > end
> >
> > Solution file:
> >
> > package be.axi.planner.domain;
> >
> > import java.util.ArrayList;
> > import java.util.Collection;
> > import java.util.List;
> >
> > import
> >
org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
> > import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
> >
> >
> > public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
> >
> > private SimpleScore score;
> > private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
> > private List<Period> periods;
> > private List<Technician> technicians;
> >
> > public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
> > MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
> > clone.periods = this.periods;
> > clone.technicians = this.technicians;
> > List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new
> ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
> > maintenanceTasks.size());
> > for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
> > MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
> > clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
> > }
> > clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
> > clone.score = this.score;
> >
> > return clone;
> > }
> >
> > public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
> > System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
> > List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
> > facts.addAll(periods);
> > facts.addAll(technicians);
> > // Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
> > that will be done automatically
> > return facts;
> > }
> >
> > public SimpleScore getScore() {
> > return this.score;
> > }
> >
> > public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
> > this.score = aScore;
> > if (aScore != null){
> > System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
> > public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
> > System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
> > return maintenanceTasks;
> > }
> >
> > public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
> > aMaintenanceTasks) {
> > System.out.println("setting tasks");
> > this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
> > }
> >
> > public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
> > System.out.println("setting Technicians");
> > this.technicians = aTechnicians;
> > }
> >
> > public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
> > System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
> > return technicians;
> > }
> >
> > public List<Period> getPeriods() {
> > System.out.println("getting periods");
> > return periods;
> > }
> >
> > public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
> > this.periods = periods;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
<http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
> essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>
> > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > > Thank you for the response.
> > > I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
> > >
> > > The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
> > >
> > > We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> > > One period every month.
> > >
> > > We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> > > planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> > > But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> > > specific period.
> > > It has though a calendar of unavailability.
> > >
> > > So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> > > constraint on period.
> > >
> > > We need to find that combination with the best match between
required
> > > skills for the job and available technicians.
> > > It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a
more
> > > skilled technician is available.
> > >
> > > I hope this is a bit clear.
> > >
> > > So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
> > >
> > > 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> > > 2) Technician
> >
> > Good idea
> >
> > >
> > > Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> > > (hard-constraint)
> > I see 3:
> > - plane availability
> > - technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
> > - technician availability
> > > Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
> >
> > yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Michiel
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
<http://www.codessentials.com/> -
> Your essential software, for free!
> > > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>>
> > > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > > airplanes and shifts
> > >
> > > Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> > > >
> > > > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say -
airplanes.
> > > > Constraints are:
> > > > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance
(when
> > not in
> > > > the air ;-)
> > > > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
> > specific
> > > > skills).
> > > > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> > > In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> > > The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> > >
> > > > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> > > planningEntity.
> > > > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the
one
> side of
> > > the manyToOne relation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > > > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with
specific
> > > skills.
> > > > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
> > >
> > > Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> > > You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and
> their jobs
> > > and the number of technicians needed by each job.
> > >
> > > I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple
technicians
> > > that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse
> rostering
> > > there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two
Plannings
> > > variables to
> > > > the Task planningEntity:
> > > > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required
tasks) and
> > >
> > > I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity
Task.
> > > It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of
> sort of
> > > requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> > >
> > > > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> > > This is a planning variable.
> > > You're assigning task to techinicians.
> > > Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple
tasks,
> > > one per required technician).
> > > Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> > > constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and
availability of
> > > > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and
skills of
> > > > technicien.
> > >
> > > Yep, with constraints
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> > > >
> > > > Will it perform well?
> > > > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > > > techniciens-availability and -skills.
> > >
> > > It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> > > In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move
selector
> > > to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different
> tasks on
> > > the same job.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > View this message in context:
> > >
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
> > > <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
10:11 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Hi,
I have set the environment option to DEBUG and now the solver reports this exception:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score corruption:
the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify that each
ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
It is caused by this rule:
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $jobId : jobId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, jobId == $jobId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1));
end
Don't really know where to go from here.
I have implemented an equals(Object obj) method in my planningEntity class
(MaintenanceTask) as I found on a nabble thread that might be the cause.
Though, no change.
I have added the code of my (Eclipse maven) project for those who want to have a look at
it.
(both as attachment and on my public dropbox
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40512353/PlanePlanner.zip)
I have the feeling that - since I am such a newbie - I'm just making a very silly
mistake that can be spotted in a glimpse by someone with expertise.
Many thanks in advance!!
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Add a generic swap move factory too, if you haven't already.
change move factory alone doesn't suffice
Op 31-08-12 17:08, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough
technicians to plan all maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then
the planner does not come up with a feasible solution.
Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance
tasks were planned on P2 or P3...
Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
Thanks
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
My excuses,
The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the task.
My last change wasn't that great ;-)
Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
Trying now with 600 seconds...
Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
Thank you,
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
So basically what I do is correct?
I'm still curious why
a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
isTerminateEarly: false
score: 0
b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Hi, me once more.
>
> I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
> (planning).
> Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
> I'm drifting, so please help...
>
> I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
> I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
> of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
> I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
> availability during a period...
>
> Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
> available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
> solution in about 3 seconds.
It probably stopped early because basically all solutions had been seen.
> Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
> results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than a few
> minutes).
you got:
<maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
so it will run for over 11 minutes.
Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
termination methods).
The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
give it.
> Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
> under 3 seconds.
>
> I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
> technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
> 400 available technicians..
> So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
>
> What I did:
>
> I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
> variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
> (See all below)
> Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
>
> Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
>
> Many thanks!!
>
> PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
>
> @PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
> TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
> public class MaintenanceTask {
>
> private Period period;
> private Project project;
> private Technician technician;
>
> public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
> this.project = aProject;
> }
>
> public String getId(){
> return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
> }
>
> @PlanningVariable
> @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> solutionProperty = "technicians")
> public Technician getTechnician() {
> return technician;
> }
>
> public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
> this.technican= aTechnician;
> }
>
> @PlanningVariable
> @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> solutionProperty = "periods")
> public Period getPeriod() {
> return period;
> }
>
> public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
> this.period = aPeriod;
> }
>
> public String getPeriodId(){
> return period == null ? null : period.getId();
> }
>
> public String getProjectId(){
> return project == null ? null : project.getId();
> }
>
> public MaintenanceTask clone() {
> MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
> clone.period = this.period;
> clone.technician= this.technician;
> return clone;
> }
>
> }
>
> Project.java
>
> public class Project {
> private Plane plane;
>
> public Project(Plane aPlane) {
> this.plane = aPlane;
> }
>
> public Plane getPlane() {
> return plane;
> }
>
> public String getId() {
> return getPlane().getName();
> }
>
> public int getTechnicianLoad(){
> return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
> }
>
> public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
> List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
> for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
> tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
> }
> return tasks;
> }
> }
>
> Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
> classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
> Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
> required technicians for the maintenance.
>
> This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <solver>
> <!-- Domain model configuration -->
>
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
>
>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
>
> <!-- Score configuration -->
> <scoreDirectorFactory>
> <scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
> <scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
> </scoreDirectorFactory>
>
> <termination>
> <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> </termination>
>
> <constructionHeuristic>
>
>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
>
>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
> </constructionHeuristic>
> <localSearch>
> <selector>
>
>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
> <!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
> RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
>
>
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
> </selector>
> <acceptor>
> <solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
> <planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
> </acceptor>
> <forager>
> <minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
> </forager>
> </localSearch>
> </solver>
>
> this is the rules file:
>
> package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
> dialect "java"
>
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
> import
> org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
>
> import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
>
> global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
>
> //
>
############################################################################
> // Hard constraints
> //
>
############################################################################
>
> rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> $technician : technician )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
> technician == $technician)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod", $t1,
> $t2));
> end
>
> rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> $projectId : projectId )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
> $projectId)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
> $t1, $t2));
> end
>
> //
>
############################################################################
> // Calculate score
> //
>
############################################################################
>
> rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
> when
> $occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
> $unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
> count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
> )
> then
> scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
> end
>
> Solution file:
>
> package be.axi.planner.domain;
>
> import java.util.ArrayList;
> import java.util.Collection;
> import java.util.List;
>
> import
> org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
> import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
> import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
>
>
> public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
>
> private SimpleScore score;
> private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
> private List<Period> periods;
> private List<Technician> technicians;
>
> public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
> MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
> clone.periods = this.periods;
> clone.technicians = this.technicians;
> List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
> maintenanceTasks.size());
> for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
> MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
> clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
> }
> clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
> clone.score = this.score;
>
> return clone;
> }
>
> public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
> System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
> List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
> facts.addAll(periods);
> facts.addAll(technicians);
> // Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
> that will be done automatically
> return facts;
> }
>
> public SimpleScore getScore() {
> return this.score;
> }
>
> public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
> this.score = aScore;
> if (aScore != null){
> System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
> }
> }
>
> @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
> public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
> System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
> return maintenanceTasks;
> }
>
> public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
> aMaintenanceTasks) {
> System.out.println("setting tasks");
> this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
> }
>
> public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
> System.out.println("setting Technicians");
> this.technicians = aTechnicians;
> }
>
> public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
> System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
> return technicians;
> }
>
> public List<Period> getPeriods() {
> System.out.println("getting periods");
> return periods;
> }
>
> public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
> this.periods = periods;
> }
>
> }
>
>
>
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > Thank you for the response.
> > I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
> >
> > The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
> >
> > We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> > One period every month.
> >
> > We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> > planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> > But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> > specific period.
> > It has though a calendar of unavailability.
> >
> > So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> > constraint on period.
> >
> > We need to find that combination with the best match between required
> > skills for the job and available technicians.
> > It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a more
> > skilled technician is available.
> >
> > I hope this is a bit clear.
> >
> > So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
> >
> > 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> > 2) Technician
>
> Good idea
>
> >
> > Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> > (hard-constraint)
> I see 3:
> - plane availability
> - technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
> - technician availability
> > Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
>
> yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
>
> >
> > Thank you.
> >
> > Michiel
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> -
Your essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>
> > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> > >
> > > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say - airplanes.
> > > Constraints are:
> > > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance (when
> not in
> > > the air ;-)
> > > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
> specific
> > > skills).
> > > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> > >
> >
> > Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> > In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> > The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> >
> > > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> > planningEntity.
> > > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
> >
> > I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the one
side of
> > the manyToOne relation.
> >
> > >
> > > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with specific
> > skills.
> > > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
> >
> > Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> > You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and
their jobs
> > and the number of technicians needed by each job.
> >
> > I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple technicians
> > that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse
rostering
> > there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
> >
> > >
> > > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two Plannings
> > variables to
> > > the Task planningEntity:
> > > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required tasks) and
> >
> > I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity Task.
> > It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of
sort of
> > requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> >
> > > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> > This is a planning variable.
> > You're assigning task to techinicians.
> > Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple tasks,
> > one per required technician).
> > Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> > constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
> >
> > >
> > > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and availability of
> > > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and skills of
> > > technicien.
> >
> > Yep, with constraints
> >
> > >
> > > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> > >
> > > Will it perform well?
> > > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > > techniciens-availability and -skills.
> >
> > It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> > In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move selector
> > to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different
tasks on
> > the same job.
> >
> >
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > View this message in context:
> >
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com
> > <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
2:37 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 02-09-12 16:11, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi,
I have set the environment option to DEBUG and now the solver reports
this exception:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing
737 - PJ23.I#1]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
It is caused by this rule:
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $jobId :
jobId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, jobId
== $jobId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1));
I expect you would add $t2 to the causes too:
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
It's unlikely that that's causing the score corruption though.
end
Don't really know where to go from here.
I have implemented an equals(Object obj) method in my planningEntity
class (MaintenanceTask) as I found on a nabble thread that might be the
cause.
Though, no change.
I have added the code of my (Eclipse maven) project for those who want
to have a look at it.
(both as attachment and on my public dropbox
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40512353/PlanePlanner.zip)
I have the feeling that - since I am such a newbie - I'm just making a
very silly mistake that can be spotted in a glimpse by someone with
expertise.
Many thanks in advance!!
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 5:43 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Add a generic swap move factory too, if you haven't already.
change move factory alone doesn't suffice
Op 31-08-12 17:08, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
>
> It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
>
> The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough
> technicians to plan all maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
> The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then
> the planner does not come up with a feasible solution.
> Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance
> tasks were planned on P2 or P3...
>
> Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
>
> Thanks
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com
<mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> My excuses,
>
> The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the
task.
> My last change wasn't that great ;-)
>
> Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
> A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
>
> Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
> Trying now with 600 seconds...
>
> Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
> So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michiel
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com
<mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
>
> So basically what I do is correct?
>
> I'm still curious why
> a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
> isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
> isTerminateEarly: false
> score: 0
>
> b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
>
> I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
> After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
> planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
>
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > Hi, me once more.
> >
> > I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
> > (planning).
> > Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
> > I'm drifting, so please help...
> >
> > I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
> > I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
> > of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
> > I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
> > availability during a period...
> >
> > Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
> > available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
> > solution in about 3 seconds.
> It probably stopped early because basically all solutions had been seen.
>
> > Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
> > results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than
a few
> > minutes).
> you got:
> <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> so it will run for over 11 minutes.
> Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
> termination methods).
>
> The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
> planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
> find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
> manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
> give it.
>
> > Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
> > under 3 seconds.
> >
> > I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
> > technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
> > 400 available technicians..
> > So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
> >
> > What I did:
> >
> > I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
> > variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
> > (See all below)
> > Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
> >
> > Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
> >
> > Many thanks!!
> >
> > PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
> >
> > @PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
> > TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
> > public class MaintenanceTask {
> >
> > private Period period;
> > private Project project;
> > private Technician technician;
> >
> > public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
> > this.project = aProject;
> > }
> >
> > public String getId(){
> > return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningVariable
> > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > solutionProperty = "technicians")
> > public Technician getTechnician() {
> > return technician;
> > }
> >
> > public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
> > this.technican= aTechnician;
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningVariable
> > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > solutionProperty = "periods")
> > public Period getPeriod() {
> > return period;
> > }
> >
> > public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
> > this.period = aPeriod;
> > }
> >
> > public String getPeriodId(){
> > return period == null ? null : period.getId();
> > }
> >
> > public String getProjectId(){
> > return project == null ? null : project.getId();
> > }
> >
> > public MaintenanceTask clone() {
> > MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
> > clone.period = this.period;
> > clone.technician= this.technician;
> > return clone;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > Project.java
> >
> > public class Project {
> > private Plane plane;
> >
> > public Project(Plane aPlane) {
> > this.plane = aPlane;
> > }
> >
> > public Plane getPlane() {
> > return plane;
> > }
> >
> > public String getId() {
> > return getPlane().getName();
> > }
> >
> > public int getTechnicianLoad(){
> > return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
> > }
> >
> > public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
> > List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
> > for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
> > tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
> > }
> > return tasks;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
> > classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
> > Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
> > required technicians for the maintenance.
> >
> > This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <solver>
> > <!-- Domain model configuration -->
> >
>
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
> >
> >
>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
> >
> > <!-- Score configuration -->
> > <scoreDirectorFactory>
> > <scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
> > <scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
> > </scoreDirectorFactory>
> >
> > <termination>
> > <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> > </termination>
> >
> > <constructionHeuristic>
> >
> >
>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
> >
> >
>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
> > </constructionHeuristic>
> > <localSearch>
> > <selector>
> >
> >
>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
> > <!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
> > RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
> >
> >
>
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
> > </selector>
> > <acceptor>
> > <solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
> > <planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
> > </acceptor>
> > <forager>
> > <minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
> > </forager>
> > </localSearch>
> > </solver>
> >
> > this is the rules file:
> >
> > package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
> > dialect "java"
> >
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
> > import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
> > import
> >
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
> >
> > import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
> >
> > global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
> >
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> > // Hard constraints
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> >
> > rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
> > when
> > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > $technician : technician )
> > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
> > technician == $technician)
> > then
> > insertLogical(new
> > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod",
$t1,
> > $t2));
> > end
> >
> > rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
> > when
> > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > $projectId : projectId )
> > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
> > $projectId)
> > then
> > insertLogical(new
> >
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
> > $t1, $t2));
> > end
> >
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> > // Calculate score
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> >
> > rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
> > when
> > $occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
> > $unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
> > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
> > count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
> > )
> > then
> > scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
> > end
> >
> > Solution file:
> >
> > package be.axi.planner.domain;
> >
> > import java.util.ArrayList;
> > import java.util.Collection;
> > import java.util.List;
> >
> > import
> >
org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
> > import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
> >
> >
> > public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
> >
> > private SimpleScore score;
> > private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
> > private List<Period> periods;
> > private List<Technician> technicians;
> >
> > public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
> > MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
> > clone.periods = this.periods;
> > clone.technicians = this.technicians;
> > List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new
> ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
> > maintenanceTasks.size());
> > for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
> > MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
> > clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
> > }
> > clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
> > clone.score = this.score;
> >
> > return clone;
> > }
> >
> > public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
> > System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
> > List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
> > facts.addAll(periods);
> > facts.addAll(technicians);
> > // Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
> > that will be done automatically
> > return facts;
> > }
> >
> > public SimpleScore getScore() {
> > return this.score;
> > }
> >
> > public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
> > this.score = aScore;
> > if (aScore != null){
> > System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
> > public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
> > System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
> > return maintenanceTasks;
> > }
> >
> > public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
> > aMaintenanceTasks) {
> > System.out.println("setting tasks");
> > this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
> > }
> >
> > public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
> > System.out.println("setting Technicians");
> > this.technicians = aTechnicians;
> > }
> >
> > public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
> > System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
> > return technicians;
> > }
> >
> > public List<Period> getPeriods() {
> > System.out.println("getting periods");
> > return periods;
> > }
> >
> > public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
> > this.periods = periods;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
<http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
> essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>
> > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > > Thank you for the response.
> > > I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
> > >
> > > The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
> > >
> > > We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> > > One period every month.
> > >
> > > We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> > > planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> > > But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> > > specific period.
> > > It has though a calendar of unavailability.
> > >
> > > So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> > > constraint on period.
> > >
> > > We need to find that combination with the best match between
required
> > > skills for the job and available technicians.
> > > It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a
more
> > > skilled technician is available.
> > >
> > > I hope this is a bit clear.
> > >
> > > So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
> > >
> > > 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> > > 2) Technician
> >
> > Good idea
> >
> > >
> > > Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> > > (hard-constraint)
> > I see 3:
> > - plane availability
> > - technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
> > - technician availability
> > > Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
> >
> > yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Michiel
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
<http://www.codessentials.com/> -
> Your essential software, for free!
> > > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>>
> > > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > > airplanes and shifts
> > >
> > > Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> > > >
> > > > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say -
airplanes.
> > > > Constraints are:
> > > > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance
(when
> > not in
> > > > the air ;-)
> > > > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
> > specific
> > > > skills).
> > > > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> > > In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> > > The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> > >
> > > > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> > > planningEntity.
> > > > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the
one
> side of
> > > the manyToOne relation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > > > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with
specific
> > > skills.
> > > > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
> > >
> > > Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> > > You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and
> their jobs
> > > and the number of technicians needed by each job.
> > >
> > > I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple
technicians
> > > that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse
> rostering
> > > there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two
Plannings
> > > variables to
> > > > the Task planningEntity:
> > > > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required
tasks) and
> > >
> > > I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity
Task.
> > > It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of
> sort of
> > > requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> > >
> > > > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> > > This is a planning variable.
> > > You're assigning task to techinicians.
> > > Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple
tasks,
> > > one per required technician).
> > > Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> > > constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and
availability of
> > > > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and
skills of
> > > > technicien.
> > >
> > > Yep, with constraints
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> > > >
> > > > Will it perform well?
> > > > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > > > techniciens-availability and -skills.
> > >
> > > It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> > > In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move
selector
> > > to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different
> tasks on
> > > the same job.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > View this message in context:
> > >
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
> > > <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
3 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Indeed, it did not help.
Any other ideas?
Please...
Thanks,
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 8:37 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Op 02-09-12 16:11, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi,
I have set the environment option to DEBUG and now the solver reports
this exception:
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing
737 - PJ23.I#1]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
It is caused by this rule:
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $jobId :
jobId )
$t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, jobId
== $jobId)
then
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1));
I expect you would add $t2 to the causes too:
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
It's unlikely that that's causing the score corruption though.
end
Don't really know where to go from here.
I have implemented an equals(Object obj) method in my planningEntity
class (MaintenanceTask) as I found on a nabble thread that might be the
cause.
Though, no change.
I have added the code of my (Eclipse maven) project for those who want
to have a look at it.
(both as attachment and on my public dropbox
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/40512353/PlanePlanner.zip)
I have the feeling that - since I am such a newbie - I'm just making a
very silly mistake that can be spotted in a glimpse by someone with
expertise.
Many thanks in advance!!
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
*Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 5:43 PM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Add a generic swap move factory too, if you haven't already.
change move factory alone doesn't suffice
Op 31-08-12 17:08, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> The run of 600 seconds ended too with a score of -2.
>
> It seems as if the planner never gets away from Period 1.
>
> The planner finds a solution quit quickly if there are enough
> technicians to plan all maintenance tasks in P1 (Period 1).
> The moment I have more maintenance tasks than different technicians then
> the planner does not come up with a feasible solution.
> Though the solution should be quit simple if one or two maintenance
> tasks were planned on P2 or P3...
>
> Any idea why P2,... never show up in the best solution?
>
> Thanks
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com
<mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 4:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> My excuses,
>
> The solution does give a valid solution with a period assigned to the
task.
> My last change wasn't that great ;-)
>
> Though the score is now -2 and obviously is not a feasible solution.
> A given technician is assigned to two tasks in the same period.
>
> Maybe 60 seconds is too short?
> Trying now with 600 seconds...
>
> Can you please confirm that my way of working is correct?
> So it is just a matter of giving more time to it?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Michiel
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com
<mailto:mvermand@yahoo.com>>
> *To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:52 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Thank you for the quick response, Geoffrey.
>
> So basically what I do is correct?
>
> I'm still curious why
> a) 3 planes, 2 techs 4 periods ends in 3 seconds with
> isEveryProblemFactChangeProcessed: true
> isTerminateEarly: false
> score: 0
>
> b) 3 planes, 3 techs 4 periods keeps running for ?? time
>
> I changed the termination parameter to 60 seconds.
> After 60 seconds best-solution gives a score of 0 but my
> planningEntities have no period assigned; only a technician.
>
>
> -----------------
> http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
essential software, for free!
> Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 3:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> airplanes and shifts
>
> Op 31-08-12 15:07, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > Hi, me once more.
> >
> > I guess you figured out by now that I am quite a newbie to Drools
> > (planning).
> > Problem is I need to write a POC in max 3 to 4 days...
> > I'm drifting, so please help...
> >
> > I have written a basic solution for planning plane-maintenance.
> > I stripped it to it's very basics and it works... if I keep the number
> > of planes, periods and technicians to a very minimum.
> > I removed all additional constraints like skill matching and
> > availability during a period...
> >
> > Planning maintenance for 3 planes with each 2 required technicians, 4
> > available periods and a list of 10 available technicians delivers a
> > solution in about 3 seconds.
> It probably stopped early because basically all solutions had been seen.
>
> > Simply increasing the number of technicians per plane from 2 to 3
> > results in an indefinite solving time (I did not wait longer than
a few
> > minutes).
> you got:
> <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> so it will run for over 11 minutes.
> Turn that to just 60 seconds (or see manual about alternative
> termination methods).
>
> The problem is NP-complete, so as you scale up to thousands (and more)
> planes/techs/periods, no software (and certainly no human being) can
> find the optimal solution in reasonable time (see first chatper in
> manual). Planner will find you the best solution in the time you (can)
> give it.
>
> > Decreasing the numbers obviously works, at an elapsed time slightly
> > under 3 seconds.
> >
> > I finally need to plan about 500 plane maintenance jobs (3 to 4
> > technicians per maintenance job) over 12 available periods with about
> > 400 available technicians..
> > So there must be something wrong/incomplete in my solution.
> >
> > What I did:
> >
> > I have created a planningEntity MaintenanceTask with two planning
> > variables (technician and period) and a simple rule file.
> > (See all below)
> > Running this solution thus results in such poor solving time.
> >
> > Can you please advice me in what I am doing wrong?
> >
> > Many thanks!!
> >
> > PlanningEntity (MaintenanceTask .java):
> >
> > @PlanningEntity(difficultyWeightFactoryClass =
> > TaskDifficultyWeightFactory.class)
> > public class MaintenanceTask {
> >
> > private Period period;
> > private Project project;
> > private Technician technician;
> >
> > public MaintenanceTask (Project aProject) {
> > this.project = aProject;
> > }
> >
> > public String getId(){
> > return project.getId()+"-"+hashCode();
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningVariable
> > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > solutionProperty = "technicians")
> > public Technician getTechnician() {
> > return technician;
> > }
> >
> > public void setTechnician(Technician aTechnician) {
> > this.technican= aTechnician;
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningVariable
> > @ValueRange(type = ValueRangeType.FROM_SOLUTION_PROPERTY,
> > solutionProperty = "periods")
> > public Period getPeriod() {
> > return period;
> > }
> >
> > public void setPeriod(Period aPeriod) {
> > this.period = aPeriod;
> > }
> >
> > public String getPeriodId(){
> > return period == null ? null : period.getId();
> > }
> >
> > public String getProjectId(){
> > return project == null ? null : project.getId();
> > }
> >
> > public MaintenanceTask clone() {
> > MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask (project);
> > clone.period = this.period;
> > clone.technician= this.technician;
> > return clone;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> > Project.java
> >
> > public class Project {
> > private Plane plane;
> >
> > public Project(Plane aPlane) {
> > this.plane = aPlane;
> > }
> >
> > public Plane getPlane() {
> > return plane;
> > }
> >
> > public String getId() {
> > return getPlane().getName();
> > }
> >
> > public int getTechnicianLoad(){
> > return getPlane().getTechnicianLoad();
> > }
> >
> > public List<MaintenanceTask> getTasks() {
> > List<MaintenanceTask> tasks = new
ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>();
> > for (int i = 0; i < getTechnicianLoad(); i++) {
> > tasks.add(new MaintenanceTask(this));
> > }
> > return tasks;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > Technician.java and Period.java are at this moment basically just
> > classes having an getId and getName method, nothing more.
> > Plane.java has a method getTechnicianLoad that returns the number of
> > required technicians for the maintenance.
> >
> > This is the config file (basically copy from one of the examples)
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <solver>
> > <!-- Domain model configuration -->
> >
>
<solutionClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceSchedule</solutionClass>
> >
> >
>
<planningEntityClass>be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask</planningEntityClass>
> >
> > <!-- Score configuration -->
> > <scoreDirectorFactory>
> > <scoreDefinitionType>SIMPLE</scoreDefinitionType>
> > <scoreDrl>/maintenancePlannerRules.drl</scoreDrl>
> > </scoreDirectorFactory>
> >
> > <termination>
> > <maximumSecondsSpend>700</maximumSecondsSpend>
> > </termination>
> >
> > <constructionHeuristic>
> >
> >
>
<constructionHeuristicType>FIRST_FIT_DECREASING</constructionHeuristicType>
> >
> >
>
<constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>FIRST_LAST_STEP_SCORE_EQUAL_OR_IMPROVING</constructionHeuristicPickEarlyType>
> > </constructionHeuristic>
> > <localSearch>
> > <selector>
> >
> >
>
<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.core.move.generic.GenericChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>
> > <!-- GenericChangeMoveFactory is the generic form of
> > RowChangeMoveFactory: -->
> >
> >
>
<!--<moveFactoryClass>org.drools.planner.examples.nqueens.solver.move.factory.RowChangeMoveFactory</moveFactoryClass>-->
> > </selector>
> > <acceptor>
> > <solutionTabuSize>1000</solutionTabuSize>
> > <planningEntityTabuSize>7</planningEntityTabuSize>
> > </acceptor>
> > <forager>
> > <minimalAcceptedSelection>800</minimalAcceptedSelection>
> > </forager>
> > </localSearch>
> > </solver>
> >
> > this is the rules file:
> >
> > package org.drools.planner.examples.pas.solver;
> > dialect "java"
> >
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScoreHolder;
> > import
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.IntConstraintOccurrence;
> > import
> >
org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.UnweightedConstraintOccurrence
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.constraint.ConstraintType;
> >
> > import be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenanceTask;
> >
> > global SimpleScoreHolder scoreHolder;
> >
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> > // Hard constraints
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> >
> > rule "noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod"
> > when
> > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > $technician : technician )
> > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId == $periodId,
> > technician == $technician)
> > then
> > insertLogical(new
> > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("noMultipleAssignmentsInOnePeriod",
$t1,
> > $t2));
> > end
> >
> > rule "tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod"
> > when
> > $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId,
> > $projectId : projectId )
> > $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, projectId ==
> > $projectId)
> > then
> > insertLogical(new
> >
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameProjectMustBeInSamePeriod",
> > $t1, $t2));
> > end
> >
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> > // Calculate score
> > //
> >
>
############################################################################
> >
> > rule "hardConstraintsBroken"
> > when
> > $occurrenceCount : Number() from accumulate(
> > $unweightedConstraintOccurrence :
> > UnweightedConstraintOccurrence(),
> > count($unweightedConstraintOccurrence)
> > )
> > then
> > scoreHolder.setScore(- $occurrenceCount.intValue());
> > end
> >
> > Solution file:
> >
> > package be.axi.planner.domain;
> >
> > import java.util.ArrayList;
> > import java.util.Collection;
> > import java.util.List;
> >
> > import
> >
org.drools.planner.api.domain.solution.PlanningEntityCollectionProperty;
> > import org.drools.planner.core.score.buildin.simple.SimpleScore;
> > import org.drools.planner.core.solution.Solution;
> >
> >
> > public class MaintenanceSchedule implements Solution<SimpleScore>{
> >
> > private SimpleScore score;
> > private List<MaintenanceTask> maintenanceTasks;
> > private List<Period> periods;
> > private List<Technician> technicians;
> >
> > public MaintenanceSchedule cloneSolution() {
> > MaintenanceSchedule clone = new MaintenanceSchedule();
> > clone.periods = this.periods;
> > clone.technicians = this.technicians;
> > List<MaintenanceTask> clonedTasks = new
> ArrayList<MaintenanceTask>(
> > maintenanceTasks.size());
> > for (MaintenanceTask task : maintenanceTasks) {
> > MaintenanceTask clonedTask = task.clone();
> > clonedTasks.add(clonedTask);
> > }
> > clone.maintenanceTasks = clonedTasks;
> > clone.score = this.score;
> >
> > return clone;
> > }
> >
> > public Collection<? extends Object> getProblemFacts() {
> > System.out.println(">>getting problemfacts");
> > List<Object> facts = new ArrayList<Object>();
> > facts.addAll(periods);
> > facts.addAll(technicians);
> > // Do not add the planning entity's (maintenaceTasks) because
> > that will be done automatically
> > return facts;
> > }
> >
> > public SimpleScore getScore() {
> > return this.score;
> > }
> >
> > public void setScore(SimpleScore aScore) {
> > this.score = aScore;
> > if (aScore != null){
> > System.out.println("Score set to " + aScore.getScore());
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @PlanningEntityCollectionProperty
> > public List<MaintenanceTask> getMaintenanceTasks() {
> > System.out.println("getting tasks: #"
+maintenanceTasks.size());
> > return maintenanceTasks;
> > }
> >
> > public void setMaintenanceTasks(List<MaintenanceTask>
> > aMaintenanceTasks) {
> > System.out.println("setting tasks");
> > this.maintenanceTasks = aMaintenanceTasks;
> > }
> >
> > public void setTechnicians(List<Technician> aTechnicians) {
> > System.out.println("setting Technicians");
> > this.technicians = aTechnicians;
> > }
> >
> > public List<Technician> getTechnicians() {
> > System.out.println("Getting Technicians: #"+technicians.size());
> > return technicians;
> > }
> >
> > public List<Period> getPeriods() {
> > System.out.println("getting periods");
> > return periods;
> > }
> >
> > public void setPeriods(List<Period> periods) {
> > this.periods = periods;
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------
> > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
<http://www.codessentials.com/> - Your
> essential software, for free!
> > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>
> > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 10:54 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > airplanes and shifts
> >
> > Op 31-08-12 09:46, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> > > Thank you for the response.
> > > I think I forgot one level of complexity (?):
> > >
> > > The moment of maintenance of a plane is not fixed.
> > >
> > > We have 12 "periods" per year for maintenance.
> > > One period every month.
> > >
> > > We need to make the planning in such way that the list of planes is
> > > planned somewhere in these 12 periods.
> > > But it is not important that a specific plane is maintained at a
> > > specific period.
> > > It has though a calendar of unavailability.
> > >
> > > So the job (==Shift) of the Task (==ShiftAssignment) has no hard
> > > constraint on period.
> > >
> > > We need to find that combination with the best match between
required
> > > skills for the job and available technicians.
> > > It's better to plan the job on a later period if at that time a
more
> > > skilled technician is available.
> > >
> > > I hope this is a bit clear.
> > >
> > > So, given this addition, should I take as planning variables:
> > >
> > > 1) Period (List of 12 periods)
> > > 2) Technician
> >
> > Good idea
> >
> > >
> > > Then use period to check availability on both plane and technician
> > > (hard-constraint)
> > I see 3:
> > - plane availability
> > - technician conflicts (2 tasks at the same time)
> > - technician availability
> > > Then give a better weight on skill-match (soft-constrain)?
> >
> > yes (and possible others, such as work load, technician desires, ...)
> >
> > >
> > > Thank you.
> > >
> > > Michiel
> > >
> > > -----------------
> > > http://www.codessentials.com <http://www.codessentials.com/>
<http://www.codessentials.com/> -
> Your essential software, for free!
> > > Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
> <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>
<mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com <mailto:ge0ffrey.spam@gmail.com>>>>
> > > *To:* rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > *Sent:* Friday, August 31, 2012 9:08 AM
> > > *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
> > > airplanes and shifts
> > >
> > > Op 30-08-12 18:02, mvermand schreef:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like some advice on how to make my model.
> > > >
> > > > I need to plan maintenance-schedules for - let's say -
airplanes.
> > > > Constraints are:
> > > > - planes are only at given moments available for maintenance
(when
> > not in
> > > > the air ;-)
> > > > - maintenance of a planes requires a number of techniciens (with
> > specific
> > > > skills).
> > > > - techniciens have skills and also shifts and vacation.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Sounds like the nurse rostering example in Planner :)
> > > In nurse rostering, such a Shift has a ShiftDate and a ShiftType.
> > > The difference is, you need to assign jobs instead of shifts.
> > >
> > > > Now, first I tought to make the maintenance of a plane the
> > > planningEntity.
> > > > But I did not know how to populate and match the techniciens.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't make plane the planningEntity either, it's on the
one
> side of
> > > the manyToOne relation.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So, second I tought to make a new Task-class the planningEntity.
> > > > A Task is a job that needs to be done by a technicien with
specific
> > > skills.
> > > > Maintaining a plane requires then a number of tasks.
> > >
> > > Good idea. In nurse rostering, a Task is called a ShiftAssignment.
> > > You can generate all Tasks in advance based on the Planes and
> their jobs
> > > and the number of technicians needed by each job.
> > >
> > > I recommend to make separate Task instances for multiple
technicians
> > > that perform the same job together on the same plane. In nurse
> rostering
> > > there are also multiple ShiftAssignments (=tasks) per Shift (=job).
> > >
> > > >
> > > > If I choose this model, I think I'll have to pass two
Plannings
> > > variables to
> > > > the Task planningEntity:
> > > > 1) a Maintenance-fact (Plane + Period + list of required
tasks) and
> > >
> > > I don't think this is a planner variable on the planning entity
Task.
> > > It really defines the Task: what job on what plane (and some of
> sort of
> > > requiredTechnicanCountIndex)
> > >
> > > > 2) a Technicien-fact (?)
> > > This is a planning variable.
> > > You're assigning task to techinicians.
> > > Each task has exactly 1 technician (because a job has multiple
tasks,
> > > one per required technician).
> > > Each technician can work on multiple tasks, but the hard/soft
> > > constraints make sure that it's not at the same time.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Then I'll need to check if availabity of plane and
availability of
> > > > technicien match and also skill-requirement of task and
skills of
> > > > technicien.
> > >
> > > Yep, with constraints
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Do you think this second model is the right one?
> > > >
> > > > Will it perform well?
> > > > => ? matching all combinations of plane availabilty and
> > > > techniciens-availability and -skills.
> > >
> > > It should, see the nurse rostering problem.
> > > In Planner 5.5.0.Beta1, I would add a filter on the swap move
selector
> > > to prevent it from swapping 2 technicians assigned to different
> tasks on
> > > the same job.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-e...
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > View this message in context:
> > >
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-model-for-planning-tp4019464.html
> > > > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at
Nabble.com
> > > <http://nabble.com/>;.
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > rules-users mailing list
> > > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > rules-users mailing list
> > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> > >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org> <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@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
3:47 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Without going through the code with a fine comb (which we don't
generally do on this level of free support), it's a bit hard to tell.
Some suggestions to take a look at:
1) Verify that the exception message now is still _exactly_ the same.
You could be looking at another score corruption exception.
If it differs the slightest bit, can you paste it again?
2) Switch from UnweightedConstraintOccurrence to
IntConstraintOccurrence, because none of the examples use the former and
most examples use the latter. If that fixes it, let me know so I can
verify and fix the bug, although on first sight I don't see a bug in the
code of UnweightedConstraintOccurrence.
Op 03-09-12 09:00, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Indeed, it did not help.
Any other ideas?
Please...
Thanks,
Michiel
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Monday, September 3, 2012 8:37 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 02-09-12 16:11, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Hi,
>
> I have set the environment option to DEBUG and now the solver reports
> this exception:
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
> The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
> tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing
> 737 - PJ23.I#1]
> tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2]
> Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
> at
>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
>
> It is caused by this rule:
>
> rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $jobId :
> jobId )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, jobId
> == $jobId)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1));
I expect you would add $t2 to the causes too:
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
It's unlikely that that's causing the score corruption though.
4:21 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Hi Geoffrey,
Thanks for the support so far.
I understand that you do not provide full support on this level.
Though I have the feeling that this is really
- a very basic solution setup
- a beginners-mistake and since I'm looking into it now for about 3 days (since I
started with planner) it seems to be not obvious to find for a beginner.
So I was trying my luck in offering the code.
It could be an opportunity to enrich the documentation ;-) ;-)
Ok,
1) adding the $t2 results in the same sort of exception, only planningEntity seems
different:
with insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1, $t2));
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score corruption:
the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1
73111693, Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2 427578167]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2
427578167, Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1 73111693]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify that each
ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
with insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1));
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score corruption:
the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#2
778813475]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#0
225744121]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify that each
ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
2) You suggested to replace UnweightedConstraintOccurrence with IntConstraintOccurrence. I
will.
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence is used in the very basic Queens example though...
3) Where is the best place to read about what insertLogical and IntConstraintOccurrence
really do?
What is the purpose of the Cause -objects, which should be passed?
=> where is the best place to find explanation about this?
(http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
doesn't really enlighten me on that part)
Thanks in advance.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List
<rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 9:47 AM
Subject: Re: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
Without going through the code with a fine comb (which we don't generally do on this
level of free support), it's a bit hard to tell.
Some suggestions to take a look at:
1) Verify that the exception message now is still _exactly_ the same. You could be looking
at another score corruption exception.
If it differs the slightest bit, can you paste it again?
2) Switch from UnweightedConstraintOccurrence to IntConstraintOccurrence, because none of
the examples use the former and most examples use the latter. If that fixes it, let me
know so I can verify and fix the bug, although on first sight I don't see a bug in the
code of UnweightedConstraintOccurrence.
Op 03-09-12 09:00, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Indeed, it did not help.
Any other ideas?
Please...
Thanks,
Michiel
*From:* Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
*To:* Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
*Sent:* Monday, September 3, 2012 8:37 AM
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians,
airplanes and shifts
Op 02-09-12 16:11, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
> Hi,
>
> I have set the environment option to DEBUG and now the solver reports
> this exception:
> Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
> The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
> tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of Boeing
> 737 - PJ23.I#1]
> tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2]
> Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
> at
>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
>
> It is caused by this rule:
>
> rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $t1 : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $periodId : periodId, $jobId :
> jobId )
> $t2 : MaintenanceTask(id != $id, periodId != $periodId, jobId
> == $jobId)
> then
> insertLogical(new
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1));
I expect you would add $t2 to the causes too:
insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1, $t2));
It's unlikely that that's causing the score corruption though.
4:44 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
Op 03-09-12 10:21, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi Geoffrey,
Thanks for the support so far.
I understand that you do not provide full support on this level.
Though I have the feeling that this is really
- a very basic solution setup
- a beginners-mistake and since I'm looking into it now for about 3 days
(since I started with planner) it seems to be not obvious to find for a
beginner.
So I was trying my luck in offering the code.
It could be an opportunity to enrich the documentation ;-) ;-)
Good point, the score corruption problem is often a beginner problem and
it's a PITA. I 'll write some more docs about.
Do note that your 3 day implementation should be able to scale out to
10000 planes pretty easily, so hang in there :)
I fear you might have started copying from the wrong example nqueens (if
you did that) :/ Nurse rostering is a far more similar to this kind of
problem. I am not sure which example to promote in the docs: the nqueens
is simple enough to explain things on, but it's too simple to copy from
for real world stuff :/ Feedback welcome.
Ok,
1) adding the $t2 results in the same sort of exception, only
planningEntity seems different:
with insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1,
$t2));
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1 73111693, Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2
427578167]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2 427578167, Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1
73111693]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
with insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1));
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#2 778813475]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#0 225744121]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
2) You suggested to replace UnweightedConstraintOccurrence with
IntConstraintOccurrence. I will.
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence is used in the very basic Queens example
though...
Yep, my mistake.
3) Where is the best place to read about what insertLogical and
IntConstraintOccurrence really do?
What is the purpose of the Cause -objects, which should be passed?
=> where is the best place to find explanation about this?
(http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
doesn't really enlighten me on that part)
Look for "insertLogical" in the Drools Expert guide:
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_...
When rules do an insertLogical of an object A, it's discarded if another
object B in the WorkingMemory equals object A (through equals() and
through hashcode()). Because the ConstraintOccurrences need to be unique
so they aren't discarded, they ruleId, constraintType and causes are
used for equals()/hashcode().
Future work: "compensation action"
Recently, drools introduced something called "compensation action",
which can probably replace the use insertLogical(ConstraintOccurrence)
and make the causes parameter obsolete.
It's also faster.
My first experiments look very promising, but I haven't got time yet to
experiment with it on all examples and make it easy for users to use.
It would allow us to do something like this in the then part of a rule:
hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addHardScore(-5);
or
hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addSoftScore(- $sum);
or
simpleScoreHelper.addScore(-7);
No need for causes, insertLogicals, no equals/hashcode() worries, much
more flexible, ...
4) Does your MaintenanceTask implement equals()/hashcode() other than
Object's original implementation?
Thanks in advance.
yw
5:30 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
I did not really start on one example. I have scrolled through several to try to figure
out how to do it, then started from scratch for the POJO's and Rules.
The config file was copies from one of the examples because it contained too many things
that were hard to get right in the beginning.
I know that is a risk but I needed to start somewhere.
3) What does "The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:" really
mean?
- Are the constraints there more than once?
- has this something to do with the equals and hashcode (which I did implement (see
below))?
About the compensation action: is it already available on 5.4.0 final? Should I try
that?
4) I have been looking to the equals and hashcode, though found many examples that
implement solutionEquals and solutionHashcode instead.
Currently I implemented them like this:
@Override
public int hashCode() {
return id.hashCode(); //(*)
}
@Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) {
return true;
}
if (id == null || !(o instanceof MaintenanceTask)) {
return false;
} else {
MaintenanceTask other = (MaintenanceTask) o;
return id.equals(other.id);
}
}
(*) id is a String property which is passed into the entity object through the
constructor and upon cloning it is passed from the clone source to the
clone target:
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
System.out.println("Cloning task " + id);
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask(job, id);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician = this.technician;
return clone;
}
I am still confused about:
- Which ones do I need to implement (equals or solutionEquals, ...)?
- Should an entity and a cloned entity have the same result for both equals and
hashcode? (I guess so)
- Should only the entity objects have such implementations? (Planning variables are
never cloned, right?)
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>
To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 10:44 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
=> insertLogical problems
Op 03-09-12 10:21, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi Geoffrey,
Thanks for the support so far.
I understand that you do not provide full support on this level.
Though I have the feeling that this is really
- a very basic solution setup
- a beginners-mistake and since I'm looking into it now for about 3 days
(since I started with planner) it seems to be not obvious to find for a
beginner.
So I was trying my luck in offering the code.
It could be an opportunity to enrich the documentation ;-) ;-)
Good point, the score corruption problem is often a beginner problem and
it's a PITA. I 'll write some more docs about.
Do note that your 3 day implementation should be able to scale out to
10000 planes pretty easily, so hang in there :)
I fear you might have started copying from the wrong example nqueens (if
you did that) :/ Nurse rostering is a far more similar to this kind of
problem. I am not sure which example to promote in the docs: the nqueens
is simple enough to explain things on, but it's too simple to copy from
for real world stuff :/ Feedback welcome.
Ok,
1) adding the $t2 results in the same sort of exception, only
planningEntity seems different:
with insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1,
$t2));
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1 73111693, Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2
427578167]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2 427578167, Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1
73111693]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
with insertLogical(new
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $t1));
Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the uncorruptedScore (0):
The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#2 778813475]
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance of
Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#0 225744121]
Check the score rules who created those ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is correct.
at
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
at
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
at
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
at
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
2) You suggested to replace UnweightedConstraintOccurrence with
IntConstraintOccurrence. I will.
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence is used in the very basic Queens example
though...
Yep, my mistake.
3) Where is the best place to read about what insertLogical and
IntConstraintOccurrence really do?
What is the purpose of the Cause -objects, which should be passed?
=> where is the best place to find explanation about this?
(http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
doesn't really enlighten me on that part)
Look for "insertLogical" in the Drools Expert guide:
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_...
When rules do an insertLogical of an object A, it's discarded if another
object B in the WorkingMemory equals object A (through equals() and
through hashcode()). Because the ConstraintOccurrences need to be unique
so they aren't discarded, they ruleId, constraintType and causes are
used for equals()/hashcode().
Future work: "compensation action"
Recently, drools introduced something called "compensation action",
which can probably replace the use insertLogical(ConstraintOccurrence)
and make the causes parameter obsolete.
It's also faster.
My first experiments look very promising, but I haven't got time yet to
experiment with it on all examples and make it easy for users to use.
It would allow us to do something like this in the then part of a rule:
hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addHardScore(-5);
or
hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addSoftScore(- $sum);
or
simpleScoreHelper.addScore(-7);
No need for causes, insertLogicals, no equals/hashcode() worries, much
more flexible, ...
4) Does your MaintenanceTask implement equals()/hashcode() other than
Object's original implementation?
Thanks in advance.
yw
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
5:56 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
6:07 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
Op 03-09-12 11:56, Geoffrey De Smet schreef:
Which ones do I need to implement (equals or solutionEquals, ...)?
solutionEquals won't cause score corruptions. That's only used by
solutionTabuMoveAcceptor
7:59 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
Hi,
I'm not keen on spending time on a temp solution if I cannot estimate - at this time -
how much time it will take me to build it correctly afterwards.
Budgets are limited... (as with anyone I guess :-)
Once again, it gives me a bad feeling that such a simple setup is giving me such a hard to
solve issue.
I had thought that - given the project is only a very few classes - it would be peanuts
for you or any other expert to pinpoint what I'm doing wrong.
Non the less...
I tried to have a look again to a number of examples and I changed my rules, with a
positive result!
I seem to get the correct solution. But... I do not know if my changes are valid.
I mean, is it possible that I threw a number of possible solutions away?
Maybe this will not show right now but will have it's effect when numbers grow and
possible solutions shrink.
So what I did is going from
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$taskA : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $jobId : jobId, $periodId : periodId )
MaintenanceTask(id != $id, jobId == $jobId, periodId != $periodId ) //
<============ a != $a
then
System.out.println("r3: " + $taskA );
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $taskA));
end
to
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$taskA : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $jobId : jobId, $periodId : periodId )
MaintenanceTask(id > $id, jobId == $jobId, periodId > $periodId ) //
<================ a > $a
then
System.out.println("r3: " + $taskA );
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $taskA));
end
Can you please tell me if this is THE solution or a dangerous move that works out now but
will give issues when numbers grow?
Thanks a lot.
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com To:
Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List
<rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts =>
insertLogical problems
Op 03-09-12 11:30, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
I did not really start on one example. I have scrolled through several to try to figure
out how to do it, then started from scratch for the POJO's and Rules.
It looks good. Only the entity's are cloned indeed during
cloneSolution(): they are the only instances that change during planning.
>
>-----------------
>http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
>Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
>________________________________
> From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com >To:
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 10:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
=> insertLogical problems
>
>Op 03-09-12 10:21, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
>> Hi Geoffrey,
> >> Thanks for the support so far.
>> I understand that you do not provide full support on
this level.
>Good point, the score corruption problem is often a
beginner
problem and
>it's a PITA. I 'll write some more docs about.
>Do note that your 3 day implementation should be able to
scale out to
> > >>
Ok,
> >> 1) adding the $t2 results in the same sort of
exception, only
>> planningEntity seems different:
> >> with insertLogical(new
>
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1,
>> $t2));
> >> Exception in thread "main"
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
>> at
>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
> >> with insertLogical(new
>
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1));
> >> Exception in thread "main"
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
>> at
>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
> > >> 2) You suggested to
replace
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence with
>Yep, my mistake.
> >> 3) Where is the best place
to read about what
insertLogical and
>Look for "insertLogical" in the Drools Expert
guide:
>http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_single/index.html
>When rules do an insertLogical of an object A, it's
discarded if another
>Future work: "compensation action"
>Recently, drools introduced something called "compensation
action",
>It would allow us to do something like this in the then
part
of a rule:
> hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addHardScore(-5);
>or
> hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addSoftScore(- $sum);
>or
> simpleScoreHelper.addScore(-7);
>No need for causes, insertLogicals, no equals/hashcode()
worries, much
>more flexible, ...
>4) Does your MaintenanceTask
implement equals()/hashcode()
other than
>Object's original implementation?
> >>
Thanks in advance.
> >yw
>_______________________________________________
>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
The config file was copies from one of the examples because it contained too many things
that were hard to get right in the beginning.
I know that is a risk but I needed to start somewhere.
I am thinking how to standardize the getting started with planner experience.
The cloud balance quick start is the example I pushing at the
moment.
But for specific use case, it's better to start from an example
that's similar to the user's use case.
The trouble is, it's often hard to see which example is similar and
which is not.
3) What does "The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:" really
mean?
- Are the constraints there more than once?
No, it means that in a clean
WorkingMemory, those 2 ConstraintOccurrences aren't there,
but in the incremental WorkingMemory, they are there.
So they are in excess: they should have been automatically retracted
by the rule engine, but for some reason, they are not.
Read this section about incremental score calculation to understand
why this complexity is needed:
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
If you just want to prove that a Planner POC works for now
(especially if you're close to giving up),
just take a few minutes to switch to a simple Java score calculator
for now:
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
It will be _much_ slower especially when it scales out (but it
should still be faster than anything you can invent yourself within
reasonable time).
Once that works fine and you get a good result on your toy problem
and you can scale out to 100+ jobs,
then switch back to drools to scale out to 10000+ jobs and follow
the rest of this mail.
- has this something to do with the equals and hashcode (which I did implement (see
below))?
Likely. The equals/hashcode methods are used of all objects in the causes parameter.
It's a design issue in Planner that the planner entity's
equals/hashcode() needs to be used for the ConstraintOccurrence's
causes.
Compensation action
About the compensation action: is it already available on 5.4.0 final? Should I try
that?
The plumbing is there in Drools Expert, but in Planner there are no decent
examples, supporting code or even complex experiments yet.
It's a minefield, probably best to stay out until I get it done or
you have more Planner experience :/
4) I have been looking to the equals and hashcode, though found many examples that
implement solutionEquals and solutionHashcode instead.
Currently I implemented them like this:
@Override
public int hashCode() {
return id.hashCode(); //(*)
}
@Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) {
return true;
}
if (id == null || !(o instanceof MaintenanceTask)) {
return false;
} else {
MaintenanceTask other = (MaintenanceTask) o;
return id.equals(other.id);
}
}
Looks good
(*) id is a String property which is passed into the entity object through the
constructor and upon cloning it is passed from the clone source to the clone target:
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
System.out.println("Cloning task " + id);
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask(job, id);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician = this.technician;
return clone;
}
Looks good.
I am still confused about:
- Which ones do I need to implement (equals or solutionEquals, ...)?
because of
this code:
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-c...
which is called by drools on insertLogical inserted objects (see
drools expert manual on insertLogical)
- Should an entity and a cloned entity have the same result for both equals and
hashcode? (I guess so)
Yes, definitely.
- Should only the entity objects have such implementations? (Planning variables are
never cloned, right?)
> Though I have the feeling that this is really
> - a very basic solution setup
> - a beginners-mistake and since I'm looking into it now
for
about 3 days
> (since I started with planner) it seems to be not
obvious to find for a
> beginner.
> So I was trying my luck in offering the code.
> It could be an opportunity to enrich the documentation
;-) ;-)
10000 planes pretty easily, so hang in there :)
I fear you might have started copying from the wrong example
nqueens (if
you did that) :/ Nurse rostering is a far more similar to
this kind of
problem. I am not sure which example to promote in the docs:
the nqueens
is simple enough to explain things on, but it's too simple
to copy from
>for real world stuff :/ Feedback welcome.
> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the
uncorruptedScore (0):
> The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in
excess:
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1 73111693, Maintenance of Boeing
737 - PJ23.I#2
>> 427578167]
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2 427578167, Maintenance of Boeing
737 - PJ23.I#1
> 73111693]
> Check the score rules who created those
ConstraintOccurrences.
Verify
> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is
correct.
>> at
>> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the
uncorruptedScore (0):
> The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in
excess:
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
>> Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#2 778813475]
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
> Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#0 225744121]
> Check the score rules who created those
ConstraintOccurrences.
Verify
> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is
correct.
>> at
>> IntConstraintOccurrence. I will.
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence is used in the very
basic Queens
example
>> though...
> IntConstraintOccurrence really do?
> What is the purpose of the Cause -objects, which should
be passed?
> => where is the best place to find explanation about
this?
>>
(http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
>> doesn't really enlighten me on that part)
object B in the WorkingMemory equals object A (through
equals() and
through hashcode()). Because the ConstraintOccurrences need
to be unique
so they aren't discarded, they ruleId, constraintType and
causes are
>used for equals()/hashcode().
which can probably replace the use
insertLogical(ConstraintOccurrence)
and make the causes parameter obsolete.
It's also faster.
My first experiments look very promising, but I haven't got
time yet
to
experiment with it on all examples and make it easy for
users to use.
8:04 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
Well figures out my self that the solution is not correct since if I increase the number
of required techs, I get invalid combinations...
Back to the drawing board.
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com To:
Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com>; Rules Users List
<rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 1:59 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
=> insertLogical problems
Hi,
I'm not keen on spending time on a temp solution if I cannot estimate - at this time -
how much time it will take me to build it correctly afterwards.
Budgets are limited... (as with anyone I guess :-)
Once again, it gives me a bad feeling that such a simple setup is giving me such a hard to
solve issue.
I had thought that - given the project is only a very few classes - it would be peanuts
for you or any other expert to pinpoint what I'm doing wrong.
Non the less...
I tried to have a look again to a number of examples and I changed my rules, with a
positive result!
I seem to get the correct solution. But... I do not know if my changes are valid.
I mean, is it possible that I threw a number of possible solutions away?
Maybe this will not show right now but will have it's effect when numbers grow
and possible solutions shrink.
So what I did is going from
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$taskA : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $jobId : jobId, $periodId : periodId )
MaintenanceTask(id != $id, jobId == $jobId, periodId != $periodId ) //
<============ a != $a
then
System.out.println("r3: " + $taskA );
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $taskA));
end
to
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$taskA : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $jobId : jobId, $periodId : periodId )
MaintenanceTask(id > $id, jobId == $jobId, periodId > $periodId ) //
<================ a > $a
then
System.out.println("r3: " + $taskA );
insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$taskA));
end
Can you please tell me if this is THE solution or a dangerous move that works out now but
will give issues when numbers grow?
Thanks a lot.
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com To:
Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List
<rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts =>
insertLogical problems
Op 03-09-12 11:30, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
I did not really start on one example. I have scrolled through several to try to figure
out how to do it, then started from scratch for the POJO's and Rules.
It looks good. Only the entity's are cloned indeed during
cloneSolution(): they are the only instances that change during planning.
>
>-----------------
>http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
>Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
>________________________________
> From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com >To:
Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 10:44 AM
>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
=> insertLogical problems
>
>Op 03-09-12 10:21, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
>> Hi Geoffrey,
> >> Thanks for the support so far.
>> I understand that you do not provide full support on
this level.
>Good point, the score corruption problem is often a
beginner
problem and
>it's a PITA. I 'll write some more docs about.
>Do note that your 3 day implementation should be able to
scale out to
> > >>
Ok,
> >> 1) adding the $t2 results in the same sort of
exception, only
>> planningEntity seems different:
> >> with insertLogical(new
>
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1,
>> $t2));
> >> Exception in thread "main"
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
>> at
>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
> >> with insertLogical(new
>
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1));
> >> Exception in thread "main"
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
>> at
>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
>> at
>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
> > >> 2) You suggested to
replace
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence with
>Yep, my mistake.
> >> 3) Where is the best place
to read about what
insertLogical and
>Look for "insertLogical" in the Drools Expert
guide:
>http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_single/index.html
>When rules do an insertLogical of an object A, it's
discarded if another
>Future work: "compensation action"
>Recently, drools introduced something called "compensation
action",
>It would allow us to do something like this in the then
part
of a rule:
> hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addHardScore(-5);
>or
> hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addSoftScore(- $sum);
>or
> simpleScoreHelper.addScore(-7);
>No need for causes, insertLogicals, no equals/hashcode()
worries, much
>more flexible, ...
>4) Does your MaintenanceTask
implement equals()/hashcode()
other than
>Object's original implementation?
> >>
Thanks in advance.
> >yw
>_______________________________________________
>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
The config file was copies from one of the examples because it contained too many things
that were hard to get right in the beginning.
I know that is a risk but I needed to start somewhere.
I am thinking how to standardize the getting started with planner experience.
The cloud balance quick start is the example I pushing at the
moment.
But for specific use case, it's better to start from an example
that's similar to the user's use case.
The trouble is, it's often hard to see which example is similar and
which is not.
3) What does "The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:" really
mean?
- Are the constraints there more than once?
No, it means that in a clean
WorkingMemory, those 2 ConstraintOccurrences aren't there,
but in the incremental WorkingMemory, they are there.
So they are in excess: they should have been automatically retracted
by the rule engine, but for some reason, they are not.
Read this section about incremental score calculation to understand
why this complexity is needed:
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
If you just want to prove that a Planner POC works for now
(especially if you're close to giving up),
just take a few minutes to switch to a simple Java score calculator
for now:
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
It will be _much_ slower especially when it scales out (but it
should still be faster than anything you can invent yourself within
reasonable time).
Once that works fine and you get a good result on your toy problem
and you can scale out to 100+ jobs,
then switch back to drools to scale out to 10000+ jobs and follow
the rest of this mail.
- has this something to do with the equals and hashcode (which I did implement (see
below))?
Likely. The equals/hashcode methods are used of all objects in the causes parameter.
It's a design issue in Planner that the planner entity's
equals/hashcode() needs to be used for the ConstraintOccurrence's
causes.
Compensation action
About the compensation action: is it already available on 5.4.0 final? Should I try
that?
The plumbing is there in Drools Expert, but in Planner there are no decent
examples, supporting code or even complex experiments yet.
It's a minefield, probably best to stay out until I get it done or
you have more Planner experience :/
4) I have been looking to the equals and hashcode, though found many examples that
implement solutionEquals and solutionHashcode instead.
Currently I implemented them like this:
@Override
public int hashCode() {
return id.hashCode(); //(*)
}
@Override
public boolean equals(Object o) {
if (this == o) {
return true;
}
if (id == null || !(o instanceof MaintenanceTask)) {
return false;
} else {
MaintenanceTask other = (MaintenanceTask) o;
return id.equals(other.id);
}
}
Looks good
(*) id is a String property which is passed into the entity object through the
constructor and upon cloning it is passed from the clone source to the clone target:
public MaintenanceTask clone() {
System.out.println("Cloning task " + id);
MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask(job, id);
clone.period = this.period;
clone.technician = this.technician;
return clone;
}
Looks good.
I am still confused about:
- Which ones do I need to implement (equals or solutionEquals, ...)?
because of
this code:
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-c...
which is called by drools on insertLogical inserted objects (see
drools expert manual on insertLogical)
- Should an entity and a cloned entity have the same result for both equals and
hashcode? (I guess so)
Yes, definitely.
- Should only the entity objects have such implementations? (Planning variables are
never cloned, right?)
> Though I have the feeling that this is really
> - a very basic solution setup
> - a beginners-mistake and since I'm looking into it now
for
about 3 days
> (since I started with planner) it seems to be not
obvious to find for a
> beginner.
> So I was trying my luck in offering the code.
> It could be an opportunity to enrich the documentation
;-) ;-)
10000 planes pretty easily, so hang in there :)
I fear you might have started copying from the wrong example
nqueens (if
you did that) :/ Nurse rostering is a far more similar to
this kind of
problem. I am not sure which example to promote in the docs:
the nqueens
is simple enough to explain things on, but it's too simple
to copy from
>for real world stuff :/ Feedback welcome.
> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the
uncorruptedScore (0):
> The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in
excess:
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1 73111693, Maintenance of Boeing
737 - PJ23.I#2
>> 427578167]
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2 427578167, Maintenance of Boeing
737 - PJ23.I#1
> 73111693]
> Check the score rules who created those
ConstraintOccurrences.
Verify
> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is
correct.
>> at
>> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not the
uncorruptedScore (0):
> The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in
excess:
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
>> Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#2 778813475]
>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
> Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#0 225744121]
> Check the score rules who created those
ConstraintOccurrences.
Verify
> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and weight is
correct.
>> at
>> IntConstraintOccurrence. I will.
> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence is used in the very
basic Queens
example
>> though...
> IntConstraintOccurrence really do?
> What is the purpose of the Cause -objects, which should
be passed?
> => where is the best place to find explanation about
this?
>>
(http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
>> doesn't really enlighten me on that part)
object B in the WorkingMemory equals object A (through
equals() and
through hashcode()). Because the ConstraintOccurrences need
to be unique
so they aren't discarded, they ruleId, constraintType and
causes are
>used for equals()/hashcode().
which can probably replace the use
insertLogical(ConstraintOccurrence)
and make the causes parameter obsolete.
It's also faster.
My first experiments look very promising, but I haven't got
time yet
to
experiment with it on all examples and make it easy for
users to use.
8:15 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
8:31 a.m.
New subject: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts => insertLogical problems
Ok,
I changed periodId > $periodId back into periodId != $periodId as I already discovered
that this change resulted in invalid solutions.
Though, then I was back to the exception.
I now made another change which seems to be the solution... I think... I hope
Though, I do not understand the solution myself for 100%
What I did was testing if period is not null:
rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
when
$taskA : MaintenanceTask(period!=null, $id : id, $jobId : jobId, $periodId :
periodId )
$taskB : MaintenanceTask(period!=null, id > $id, jobId == $jobId, periodId !=
$periodId )
then
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod", $taskA, $taskB));
end
I just tried that because all the sudden I tought checking null != null might not be such
a good idea.
I now get the right combinations.
Can you please tell me if this is a correct change?
Once again one of my earlier questions arises: why is a rule tested upon an entity before
the planning variables are set?
Or am I wrong here?
Thanks,
Michiel
-----------------
http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
________________________________
From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com To: Rules
Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts
=> insertLogical problems
Op 03-09-12 13:59, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
Hi,
Incremental score calculation isn't a simple concept nor
easy to implement.
But I agree that Drools and Planner should shield you from that
complexity and take the heat there.
Planner already has extensive support to detect score corruption in
incremental score calculation,
and Drools's compensation action looks promising to take greatly
simply the complexity to the user.
I had thought that - given the project is only a very few classes - it would be peanuts
for you or any other expert to pinpoint what I'm doing wrong.
I didn't have the time to read all the classes in detail,
just glimpsed over them.
>Non the less...
>I tried to have a look again to a number of examples and I
changed my rules, with a positive result!
>So what I did is going from
>rule "tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $taskA : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $jobId : jobId,
$periodId : periodId )
>to
>rule
"tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod"
> when
> $taskA : MaintenanceTask($id : id, $jobId : jobId,
$periodId : periodId )
$taskB:
MaintenanceTask(id > $id,
Good, because if you count the combination task5-task7, you
don't want to count the combination task7-task5 too.
jobId == $jobId, periodId > $periodId ) // <================ a > $a
Bad, keep this on periodId != $periodId (or even period !=
$period)
then
Add $taskB too:
insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$taskA, $taskB));
end
>Can you please tell me if this
is THE solution or a dangerous move that works out now but will give issues when numbers
grow?
The id > $id change is good, the periodId != $periodId
isn't.
The above fixes could explain score corruption. You no longer get
any exceptions in environmentMode DEBUG or TRACE?
Keep looking at the examples: they work and they scale.
Keep providing feedback as to the pain points too of course.
Hope that helps.
>Thanks a lot.
>Michiel
>
>-----------------
>http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for
free!
>Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
>________________________________
> From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com >To:
Michiel Vermandel <mvermand(a)yahoo.com>; Rules Users List
<rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 11:56 AM
>Subject: Re: Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and shifts =>
insertLogical problems
>
>Op
03-09-12 11:30, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
>I did not really start on one example. I have scrolled
through several to try to figure out how to do it, then started from scratch for the
POJO's and Rules.
> >>The config file was copies from one of the examples
because it contained too many things that were hard to get right in the beginning.
>>I know that is a risk but I needed to start somewhere.
> > I am thinking how to standardize the
getting started with planner experience.
>
>>3) What does "The workingMemory has 2 ConstraintOccurrence(s) in
excess:" really mean?
>> - Are the constraints there more than once?
No, it means that in a clean WorkingMemory, those 2 ConstraintOccurrences aren't
there,
>Read this section about incremental score calculation to
understand why this complexity is needed:
>
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
>If you just want to prove that a Planner POC works for
now (especially if you're close to giving up),
> - has this something to do
with the equals and hashcode (which I did implement (see below))?
Likely. The equals/hashcode methods are used of all objects in the causes parameter.
>
>> About the compensation action: is it already available on 5.4.0 final?
Should I try that?
The plumbing is there in Drools Expert, but in Planner there are no decent examples,
supporting code or even complex experiments yet.
>
>>4) I have been looking to the equals and hashcode, though found many
examples that implement solutionEquals and solutionHashcode instead.
>> Currently I implemented them like this:
> >> @Override
>> public int hashCode() {
>> return id.hashCode(); //(*)
>> }
> >> @Override
>> public boolean equals(Object o) {
>> if (this == o) {
>> return true;
>> }
>> if (id == null || !(o instanceof
MaintenanceTask)) {
> Looks good
> >>
(*) id is a String property which is passed into the entity object through the
constructor and upon cloning it is passed from the clone source to the clone target:
>> public MaintenanceTask clone() {
>> System.out.println("Cloning task " + id);
>> MaintenanceTask clone = new MaintenanceTask(job, id);
>> clone.period = this.period;
>> clone.technician = this.technician;
>> return clone;
>> }
> Looks good.
>
> > > >>
I am still confused about:
> >> - Which ones do I need to implement (equals or
solutionEquals, ...)?
because of this code:
> - Should an entity and a cloned entity have the same
result for both equals and hashcode? (I guess so)
Yes, definitely.
> - Should only the entity objects have such
implementations? (Planning variables are never cloned, right?)
> It looks good. Only the entity's are cloned indeed during
cloneSolution(): they are the only instances that change during planning.
>
> >>
>>-----------------
>>http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free!
>>Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials
> >
>>________________________________
>> From: Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.spam(a)gmail.com
>>To: Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org>
>>Sent: Monday, September 3, 2012 10:44 AM
>>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Best model for planning? technicians, airplanes and
shifts => insertLogical problems
>>
>>Op 03-09-12 10:21, Michiel Vermandel schreef:
>>> Hi Geoffrey,
>> >>> Thanks for the support
so far.
>>> I understand that you do not provide full
support on this level.
>>Good point, the score corruption problem is
often a beginner problem and
>>it's a PITA. I 'll write some more docs about.
> >>Do note that your 3 day implementation should be
able to scale out to
>>
>> >>> Ok,
>> >>> 1) adding the $t2
results in the same sort
of exception, only
>>> planningEntity seems different:
>> >>> with insertLogical(new
>>
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1,
>>> $t2));
>> >>> Exception in thread
"main"
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
>>> at
>>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
>> >>> with insertLogical(new
>>
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$t1));
>> >>> Exception in thread
"main"
java.lang.IllegalStateException: Score
org.drools.planner.core.score.director.AbstractScoreDirector.assertWorkingScore(AbstractScoreDirector.java:101)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.doMove(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:110)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.decider.DefaultGreedyDecider.decideNextStep(DefaultGreedyDecider.java:78)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.constructionheuristic.greedyFit.DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.solve(DefaultGreedyFitSolverPhase.java:63)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.runSolverPhases(DefaultSolver.java:183)
>>> at
>>
org.drools.planner.core.solver.DefaultSolver.solve(DefaultSolver.java:151)
>>> at
>>
be.axi.planner.domain.MaintenancePlanning.main(MaintenancePlanning.java:27)
>> >> >>> 2) You suggested to replace
UnweightedConstraintOccurrence with
>>Yep, my mistake.
> >>
>>> 3) Where is the best place to read about
what insertLogical and
>>Look for "insertLogical" in the Drools
Expert
guide:
>
>>http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_single/index.html
> >>When rules do an insertLogical of an object A,
it's discarded if another
>>Future work: "compensation action"
>>Recently, drools introduced something called
"compensation action",
>>It would allow us to do something like this in
the then part of a rule:
>> hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addHardScore(-5);
>>or
>> hardAndSoftScoreHelper.addSoftScore(- $sum);
>>or
>> simpleScoreHelper.addScore(-7);
> >>No need for causes, insertLogicals, no
equals/hashcode() worries, much
>>more flexible, ...
> > >>4) Does your MaintenanceTask
implement
equals()/hashcode() other than
>>Object's original implementation?
> > >> >>> Thanks in advance.
>> >
>>yw
> >>_______________________________________________
>>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
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
I'm not keen on spending time on a temp solution if I cannot
estimate -
at this time - how much time it will take me to build
it correctly afterwards.
Budgets are limited... (as with anyone I guess :-)
Once again, it gives me a bad feeling that such a simple setup
is giving me
such a hard to solve issue.
I seem to get the correct solution. But... I do not know if my
changes are valid.
I mean, is it possible that I threw a number of possible
solutions away?
Maybe this will not show right now but will have it's effect
when numbers grow and possible solutions shrink.
MaintenanceTask(id != $id, jobId == $jobId, periodId !=
$periodId ) // <============ a != $a
then
System.out.println("r3: " + $taskA );
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$taskA));
>end
System.out.println("r3: " + $taskA );
insertLogical(new
IntConstraintOccurrence("tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod",
$taskA));
The cloud balance quick start is the example I pushing
at the moment.
But for specific use case, it's better to start from an
example that's similar to the user's use case.
The trouble is, it's often hard to see which example is
similar and which is not.
but in the incremental WorkingMemory, they are there.
So they are in excess: they should have been
automatically retracted
by the rule engine, but for some
reason, they are not.
just take a few minutes to switch to a simple Java score
calculator for now:
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
It will be _much_ slower especially when it scales out
(but it
should still be faster than anything you can
invent yourself within reasonable time).
Once that works fine and you get a good result on your
toy problem and you can scale out to 100+ jobs,
then switch back to drools to scale out to 10000+ jobs
and follow the rest of this mail.
It's a design issue in Planner that the planner entity's
equals/hashcode() needs to be used for the
ConstraintOccurrence's causes.
>Compensation action
It's a minefield, probably best to stay out until I get
it done or you have more Planner experience :/
> return false;
> } else {
> MaintenanceTask other =
(MaintenanceTask)
o;
>> return id.equals(other.id);
>> }
>> }
>
https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools-planner/blob/master/drools-planner-c...
which is called by drools on insertLogical inserted
objects (see
drools expert manual on insertLogical)
>> Though I have the feeling that this is
really
>> - a very basic solution setup
>> - a beginners-mistake and since I'm looking
into it now for about 3 days
>> (since I started with planner) it seems to
be not obvious to find for a
>> beginner.
>> So I was trying my luck in offering the
code.
>> It could be an opportunity to enrich the
documentation ;-) ;-)
>>10000 planes pretty easily, so hang in there :)
>I fear you might have started copying from the
wrong
example nqueens (if
>you did that) :/ Nurse rostering is a far more
similar to this kind of
>problem. I am not sure which example to promote
in the docs: the nqueens
>is simple enough to explain things on, but it's
too simple to copy from
>>for real world stuff :/ Feedback welcome.
>>> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not
the uncorruptedScore (0):
>> The workingMemory has 2
ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
>>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
>> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1 73111693, Maintenance
of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2
>>> 427578167]
>>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
>> Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#2 427578167,
Maintenance of Boeing 737 - PJ23.I#1
>> 73111693]
>> Check the score rules who created those
ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
>> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and
weight is correct.
>>> at
>>>> corruption: the workingScore (-2) is not
the uncorruptedScore (0):
>> The workingMemory has 2
ConstraintOccurrence(s) in excess:
>>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
>>> Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#2 778813475]
>>
tasksInSameJobMustBeInSamePeriod/NEGATIVE_HARD:[Maintenance
of
>> Airbus A350 - XJ34.I#0 225744121]
>> Check the score rules who created those
ConstraintOccurrences. Verify
>> that each ConstraintOccurrence's causes and
weight is correct.
>>> at
>>>> IntConstraintOccurrence. I will.
>> UnweightedConstraintOccurrence is used in
the very
basic Queens example
>>> though...
>>> IntConstraintOccurrence really do?
>> What is the purpose of the Cause -objects,
which
should be passed?
>> => where is the best place to find
explanation about this?
>>>
(http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.4.0.Final/drools-planner-docs/html...
>>> doesn't really enlighten me on that part)
>>object B in the WorkingMemory equals object A
(through equals() and
>through hashcode()). Because the
ConstraintOccurrences need to be unique
>so they aren't discarded, they ruleId,
constraintType and causes are
>>used for equals()/hashcode().
>>which can probably replace the use
insertLogical(ConstraintOccurrence)
>and make the causes parameter obsolete.
>It's also faster.
>My first experiments look very promising, but I
haven't got time yet to
>experiment with it on all examples and make it
easy for users to use.
>
4251
days inactive
4255
days old
25 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Geoffrey De Smet -
Michiel Vermandel -
mvermand