11:28 a.m.
Hello,
I have following rule:
rule "Remove unsued phones"
when
exists Customer()
not Customer(phone == $value)
$unused: Phone($value: value)
then
retract($unused);
end
There might be multiple Customer and Phone facts in the working memory and the purpose of
the rule is to remove phones that do not belong to any of the customers. The rule should
not be activated while there are no Customers in WM - hence the "exists
Customer()". This is becaus there are other rules, taht might use the phones to
lookup customers.
There Phone with value = "test" in working memory when Customer with phone =
"test" is inserted. BTW: Both facts are immutable.
The behavior differs depending on order of the 3 patterns in the LHS of the rule.
1) If the "exists Customer()" is first activation is created
- this is wrong since the "exists Customer()" shall be false
2) if I move the "exists Customer()" between the other patterns activation is
created and immediatelly canceled
- this is also wrong since, although in my case (where are no side effects) it works
3) Finally if the "exists Customer()" comes last the then activation is not
created at all
- this is correct
Is this bug or am I missing something important about rule language? Rewriting the LHS
with expicit infix and does not help:
(exists Customer()) and
(not Customer(phone == $value)) and
($unused: Phone($value: value))
Ales
FYI: I'm using 5.5.0.Final
11:57 a.m.
Please restate your problem, correcting (see below)...
On 14/02/2013, DOLECEK Ales <Ales.Dolecek(a)nextiraone.eu> wrote:
rule "Remove unsued phones"
when
exists Customer()
not Customer(phone == $value)
$unused: Phone($value: value)
then
retract($unused);
end
Provide the accurate code of your rule. This one isn't correct, since
use of $value precedes its definition....
There might be multiple Customer and Phone facts in the working memory and
the purpose of the rule is to remove phones that do not belong to any of the
customers. The rule should not be activated while there are no Customers in
WM - hence the "exists Customer()". This is becaus there are other rules,
taht might use the phones to lookup customers.
There Phone with value = "test" in working memory when Customer with phone =
"test" is inserted. BTW: Both facts are immutable.
Please provide a more accurate description, preferably (correct &
working) Java code.
-W
The behavior differs depending on order of the 3 patterns in the LHS of the
rule.
1) If the "exists Customer()" is first activation is created
- this is wrong since the "exists Customer()" shall be false
2) if I move the "exists Customer()" between the other patterns activation
is created and immediatelly canceled
- this is also wrong since, although in my case (where are no side effects)
it works
3) Finally if the "exists Customer()" comes last the then activation is not
created at all
- this is correct
Is this bug or am I missing something important about rule language?
Rewriting the LHS with expicit infix and does not help:
(exists Customer()) and
(not Customer(phone == $value)) and
($unused: Phone($value: value))
Ales
FYI: I'm using 5.5.0.Final
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
12:14 p.m.
FWIW, the corrected rule works, irrespective of the position of the "exists"
CE.
rule killphone
when
exists Customer()
$unused: Phone( $value: value )
not Customer( phone == $value )
then
retract( $unused );
end
-W
On 14/02/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Please restate your problem, correcting (see below)...
On 14/02/2013, DOLECEK Ales <Ales.Dolecek(a)nextiraone.eu> wrote:
> rule "Remove unsued phones"
> when
> exists Customer()
> not Customer(phone == $value)
> $unused: Phone($value: value)
> then
> retract($unused);
> end
Provide the accurate code of your rule. This one isn't correct, since
use of $value precedes its definition....
>
> There might be multiple Customer and Phone facts in the working memory
> and
> the purpose of the rule is to remove phones that do not belong to any of
> the
> customers. The rule should not be activated while there are no Customers
> in
> WM - hence the "exists Customer()". This is becaus there are other rules,
> taht might use the phones to lookup customers.
>
> There Phone with value = "test" in working memory when Customer with phone
> =
> "test" is inserted. BTW: Both facts are immutable.
Please provide a more accurate description, preferably (correct &
working) Java code.
-W
>
> The behavior differs depending on order of the 3 patterns in the LHS of
> the
> rule.
>
> 1) If the "exists Customer()" is first activation is created
> - this is wrong since the "exists Customer()" shall be false
>
> 2) if I move the "exists Customer()" between the other patterns
> activation
> is created and immediatelly canceled
> - this is also wrong since, although in my case (where are no side
> effects)
> it works
>
> 3) Finally if the "exists Customer()" comes last the then activation is
> not
> created at all
> - this is correct
>
> Is this bug or am I missing something important about rule language?
> Rewriting the LHS with expicit infix and does not help:
>
> (exists Customer()) and
> (not Customer(phone == $value)) and
> ($unused: Phone($value: value))
>
>
> Ales
>
> FYI: I'm using 5.5.0.Final
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
3:03 p.m.
Thanks,
thats it. I did not know that the variable binding has to precede variable
use. It makes sense, but with all the "declarative vs. procedural" reasoning
I simply missed it. It is not stated explicitly in the manual.
Ales
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Pattern-order-affects-activ...
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
1:24 a.m.
On 14/02/2013, AlesD <Ales.Dolecek(a)nextiraone.eu> wrote:
Thanks,
thats it. I did not know that the variable binding has to precede
variable
use. It makes sense, but with all the "declarative vs. procedural"
reasoning
I simply missed it. It is not stated explicitly in the manual.
Indeed, but how did you ever compile it?
-W
Ales
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Pattern-order-affects-activ...
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
4709
days inactive
4710
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
AlesD -
DOLECEK Ales
-
Wolfgang Laun