6:16 p.m.
In Guvnor 5.1 I have several rules that invoke services defined as globals. Rules that
invoke methods on these globals run OK when deployed, but a test scenario that triggers
such a rule gets an exception.
For example, with a global named "logger" a rule that has in its THEN clause:
logger.debug("customer was added to session");
Test Scenario that triggers this rule gets the error:
[Error: unable to access property (null parent): debug]
Thanks for your help.
12:43 p.m.
I realized that I needed to add the global to the test scenario. I did so,
and no longer see the "null" message; however I get another error:
[Error: unable to find constructor for: org.apache.commons.logging.Log]
[Near : {... g.apache.commons.logging.Log( ....}] ^ [Line: 1, Column: 0]
this is the same message that I see when I try to include a class in a test
scenario but the class has no public no-arg constructor. Is there a
workaround for this with classes like this one from apache commons, where I
do not have control over the source?
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
7:59 a.m.
Hi,
I've the same problem -> my global variable is an Integer.
Have you already found any solution or workaround?
I'll be very appreciate for reply.
BR
Alex
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
2:51 p.m.
Sorry, we did not find a workaround for this. We are no longer using Guvnor
for rules management.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
4:02 p.m.
I would be interested in learning your main reasons for ceasing with Guvnor.
We are always endeavouring to improve Guvnor and, accepting it has much to
be improved, would appreciate your view of its failings that led to your
decision.
sent on the move
On 16 Sep 2011 20:52, "lhorton" <LHorton(a)abclegal.com> wrote:
Sorry, we did not find a workaround for this. We are no longer using
Guvnor
for rules management.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
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
4:44 p.m.
The project I'm on needs to be stable by the end of this month for rules. We
started evaluating Guvnor in April (5.1 release). We ran into several
problems. For example:
enums didn't work in guided rules
loading some rule spreadsheets failed
we have domain classes with private no-arg constructors and Guvnor didn't
handle these by reflection
above classes also couldn't be used in guided tests
inability to test rules that used globals
I know some of these have been fixed (you fixed the spreadsheet problem that
I had, I think) but our evaluation was that we could not wait to see if
things got fixed in time, and my management had resistance to changing our
domain model to conform to Guvnor requirements. We had a vision that Guvnor
would allow non-technical business people write rules, but we ended up
having to write technical rules due to the various problems.
We also found that writing DRL and using spreadsheets outside guvnor for our
rules was working ok, and it was much easier to maintain everything under
our own IDE (e.g. keeping domain model in synch with rules; archiving;
deploying).
Guvnor looks like it is improving with every release. I will keep
re-evaluating it when new releases come out.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
5:08 p.m.
Thank-you Lisa for your honest and candid reply. Enum support was vastly
improved in 5.2 and we continue to try to make improvements that will be of
benefit to users whilst also endeavouring to achieve our own goals. I hope
as we continue to enhance Guvnor you are able to reconsider it in the
future.
sent on the move
On 16 Sep 2011 22:45, "lhorton" <LHorton(a)abclegal.com> wrote:
The project I'm on needs to be stable by the end of this month
for rules.
We
started evaluating Guvnor in April (5.1 release). We ran into
several
problems. For example:
enums didn't work in guided rules
loading some rule spreadsheets failed
we have domain classes with private no-arg constructors and Guvnor didn't
handle these by reflection
above classes also couldn't be used in guided tests
inability to test rules that used globals
I know some of these have been fixed (you fixed the spreadsheet problem
that
I had, I think) but our evaluation was that we could not wait to see
if
things got fixed in time, and my management had resistance to changing our
domain model to conform to Guvnor requirements. We had a vision that
Guvnor
would allow non-technical business people write rules, but we ended
up
having to write technical rules due to the various problems.
We also found that writing DRL and using spreadsheets outside guvnor for
our
rules was working ok, and it was much easier to maintain everything
under
our own IDE (e.g. keeping domain model in synch with rules; archiving;
deploying).
Guvnor looks like it is improving with every release. I will keep
re-evaluating it when new releases come out.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
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
5:59 p.m.
For your scenario it seems that you would benefit from using the
supported Drools and Guvnor (BRMS). It would allow you to get fixes for
your specific needs (via supported patches) and not have to worry about
new features included alongside your fixes in the community releases.
Regarding >> ...and it was much easier to maintain everything under our
own IDE (e.g. keeping domain model in synch with rules; archiving;
deploying). << if indeed you are thinking of using Guvnor in the future,
it would be nice to actually tell us specific cases that you would like
to see improvements on, rather than just saying that it was much easier
to do something else, and also not providing details on this "else"
which could help us determine what improvements could be made in Guvnor
too :)
Thanks.
On 9/16/11 5:44 PM, lhorton wrote:
The project I'm on needs to be stable by the end of this month
for rules. We
started evaluating Guvnor in April (5.1 release). We ran into several
problems. For example:
enums didn't work in guided rules
loading some rule spreadsheets failed
we have domain classes with private no-arg constructors and Guvnor didn't
handle these by reflection
above classes also couldn't be used in guided tests
inability to test rules that used globals
I know some of these have been fixed (you fixed the spreadsheet problem that
I had, I think) but our evaluation was that we could not wait to see if
things got fixed in time, and my management had resistance to changing our
domain model to conform to Guvnor requirements. We had a vision that Guvnor
would allow non-technical business people write rules, but we ended up
having to write technical rules due to the various problems.
We also found that writing DRL and using spreadsheets outside guvnor for our
rules was working ok, and it was much easier to maintain everything under
our own IDE (e.g. keeping domain model in synch with rules; archiving;
deploying).
Guvnor looks like it is improving with every release. I will keep
re-evaluating it when new releases come out.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
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
10:05 a.m.
My "much easier" comment was not a criticism of Guvnor in those areas. I
know it is possible to connect a Guvnor repository to an archive system and
so on. But once we decided to maintain rules within our IDE, it was
"easier" simply because we already had our repository and domain model and
build & deploy scripts established there.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
3:52 a.m.
Thank You very much for your reply.
Using Guvnor is one of the major priorities for us, so I think we'll still
use it somehow, even without tests written by business users.
What I'd also add to Guvnor improvements (additionally to your notifications
which are also important for us) is:
- using template variables in formula
- posibility of using formula in guided editor in such way:
$eval+1 (formula field) greather than (combo-box) variable (also chosen
from list)
I mean I'd like to perform some simply operations on one variable and
compare with another but using guided fields (lists of available variables)
not only text field with whole expresion specified
BR
Alex
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Guvnor-test-scenarios-for-r...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
4817
days inactive
4940
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
aleksanderk -
lhorton -
Lisa Horton
-
Michael Anstis -
Tihomir Surdilovic