With both Drools v5.5.0.Final and v5.6.0.Final I observe a different behavior than in both v6.0.0.Final and v6.0.1.Final. in certain rules with negation wrapped around nested constraints. I have tried to make the simplest rules to demonstrate the situation. With a kb consisting of the following rules, which I have comments on that describe what I've found with the situation: ``` // Enabling this rule, makes "negation_over_nested" and // "negation_distributed_partially_sharing" fire; // without it they do not. // // I think this is due to some shared structure // in the underlying subnetwork (I believe this is referred to as a "segment"). // Perhaps it makes them "linked" in when otherwise they are being missed. /** *This is commented out, uncommenting causes different firing of other rules* rule shared_conjunct when (not (String() and Integer())) then System.out.println("shared_conjunct"); end */ // Won't fire with no wm facts UNLESS // it shares (I think) a node/subnetwork/segment with constraints // in a rule like "rule shared_conjunct" that DOES fire rule negation_over_nested when not ( (String() and Integer()) or (String() and Integer())) then System.out.println("negation_over_nested"); end // Won't fire with no wm facts rule negation_distributed_partially_no_sharing when (not (String() and Long())) and (not (String() and Long())) then System.out.println("negation_distributed_partially_no_sharing"); end // Same situation as "negation_over_nested" rule negation_distributed_partially_sharing when (not (String() and Integer())) and (not (String() and Integer())) then System.out.println("negation_distributed_partially_sharing"); end // DOES fire with no wm inserts. // DOES NOT need "shared_conjunct" to work rule negation_distributed_fully when ((not String()) or (not Integer())) and ((not String()) or (not Integer())) then System.out.println("negation_distributed_fully"); end ``` --- This is the only 2 rules in the kb. Running a session, with no facts inserted and then firing all rules. --- Drools v5.x output with "shared_conjuct" rule uncommented: ``` negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_partially_no_sharing negation_distributed_partially_sharing negation_over_nested shared_conjunct fired: 8 time elapsed: 0.0 done ``` with "shared_conjuct" rule commented out: ``` negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_partially_no_sharing negation_distributed_partially_sharing negation_over_nested fired: 7 time elapsed: 0.0010 done ``` --- Drools v6.x output: with "shared_conjuct" rule uncommented: ``` shared_conjunct negation_over_nested negation_distributed_partially_sharing negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully fired: 7 time elapsed: 0.0 done ``` with "shared_conjuct" rule commented out: ``` negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully negation_distributed_fully fired: 4 time elapsed: 0.0 done ``` I do note in the v6.x output, "negation_distributed_partially_no_sharing" never fires, since it is specifically not sharing any negated conjunt with the other rules. This seems to correlate with whether or not these rules fire. Also, I realize my terminology is slightly off. I think this is an issue with rules having shared "segments", where one of these segments that is shared is the negation subnetwork introduced in "shared_conjunct". I also note that "negation_distributed_fully" always fires, independent of any potential "segment" sharing. As I mentioned in a comment on "shared_conjuct", I'm thinking this relates to the newer PHREAK algorithm vs the original ReteOO. Is this expected? Is there something incorrect about the structure of the negation rules? Perhaps I have stumbled upon a defect? I have not had time to do any sort of deeper debugging into the issue, if I find out more info, I'll post it up here. p.s. I know the types are not meaningful, this is just an example to show the difference. I hope it accomplishes this goal. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Nested-negation-constraints-behavior-ch... 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

I made a basic jar that only depends on Drools. All the rules do is output to standard out to demonstrate. This can just be ran with: `mvn exec:java -Dexec.mainClass="example.drools.TestingNestedNegation"` This is with v6.0.1.Final; so switching this in the pom.xml to 5.6.0.Final, for example, will cause the different behavior between the versions i.e. changing <drools.version>6.0.1.Final</drools.version> in pom.xml . @Mark I looked at the link and he had a zip file. I'm guessing a jar with a main class in it is sufficient? drools-example-tests-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4028398/drools-example-tests-1.0-... Also, I am still using the now, legacy API for the kb and Stateful session. I tried to add the logback.xml config file, but it doesn't seem to work quite so simply there. That is likely due to me not reading up on the new API yet... I'm hoping the initial uplift to v6.x can just be to the legacy API and migrate over later on. I don't think the API choice would make this behavioral change in the rules nonetheless. Let me know what else would be helpful. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Nested-negation-constraints-behavior-ch... 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