[Sorry - the previous email "escaped" before I was complete.] This is a self-contained DRL demonstrating the erroneous handling of a condition involving Integer.intValue (same: Number.intValue), not and retract, which is meant to sort the integers. This fails with 5.5.0, but works correctly with 5.4.0 and previous versions. rule init salience 9999 when then insert( Integer.valueOf( 10 ) ); insert( Integer.valueOf( 50 ) ); insert( Integer.valueOf( 60 ) ); insert( Integer.valueOf( 40 ) ); insert( Integer.valueOf( 20 ) ); end rule "Rule 04" when $number : Integer( $i: intValue ) not Integer(intValue < $i) then System.out.println("Number found with value: " + $number.intValue()); retract($number); end > > On 17/01/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> This BAD bug was introduced on the way from 5.4.0 to 5.5.0 (and seems >> to have sneaked into 6.0.0 as well). >> >> Only 5.4.0 and predecessors work as expected. >> >> Damage control? How far can 5.5.0 be trusted? >> >> >> On 17/01/2013, John Smith <ffirstt.llastt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> I am new to Drools and am trying to get the sample program to work. >>> This >>> sample is given in the drools documentation >>> http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.5.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_.... >>> This drool rule is expected to sort integers. I just changed the >>> numbers >>> from what are given in the sample and they do not get sorted as >>> expected. >>> Tried using drools version 5.5.0, 5.5.1 and the master 6.0.0, but got >>> the >>> same wrong results. >>> >>> Following is the main code: >>> package com.sample; >>> >>> public class Example2 { >>> public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { >>> Number[] numbers = new Number[] { wrap(5), wrap(6), wrap(4), >>> wrap(1), wrap(2) }; >>> new RuleRunner().runRules(new String[] { "Example3.drl" }, >>> numbers); >>> } >>> >>> private static Integer wrap(int i) { >>> return new Integer(i); >>> } >>> } >>> >>> The RuleRunner class is the same as given in the example and I do not >>> think >>> I should give that here, since it will clutter the question. It simply >>> creates the KnowledgeBase, stateful session, inserts the facts as given >>> in >>> the 'numbers' array above and then calls fireAllRules method on the >>> session. >>> >>> The rule file (Example3.drl) is: >>> >>> >>> rule "Rule 04" >>> dialect "mvel" >>> when >>> $number : Number() >>> not Number(intValue < $number.intValue) >>> then >>> System.out.println("Number found with value: " + >>> $number.intValue()); >>> retract($number); >>> end >>> >>> >>> The output I get is as follows: >>> Loading file: Example3.drl >>> Inserting fact: 5 >>> Inserting fact: 6 >>> Inserting fact: 4 >>> Inserting fact: 1 >>> Inserting fact: 2 >>> Number found with value: 1 >>> Number found with value: 4 >>> Number found with value: 2 >>> Number found with value: 5 >>> Number found with value: 6 >>> >>> Not the correct expected ascending sorted order. >>> >>> What might I be doing wrong? I cannot imagine that the drools rule >>> engine >>> would be broken at this basic level. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> View this message in context: >>> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Expert-does-not-sort-integers-co... >>> 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 >>> >> >

We tracked it down to the range indexing iterator, in not and exist nodes. Should be fixed next week. Mark On 20 Jan 2013, at 08:23, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Below is another couple of test cases, showing that the problem is not > due > a getter that isn't called get* - it's a more general problem. As far as > I > can tell this rule pattern, expecting to fire in ascending order of > Fact.prop, is broken in 5.5.0: > > rule "Rule xx" > when > $fact: Fact( $prop: prop ) > not Fact(prop < $prop) > then > System.out.println("Fact.prop: " + $prop); > retract($fact); > end > > // Test case using String > > rule init > salience 9999 > when > then > insert( "AAA" ); > insert( "DDD" ); > insert( "EEE" ); > insert( "CCC" ); > insert( "BBB" ); > end > > rule "Rule 05" > when > $s : String() > not String( this < $s) > then > System.out.println("String found with value: " + $s ); > retract($s); > end > > // Test case using declared type > declare Fact > prop : long > end > > rule init > salience 999 > when > then > insert( new Fact( 1 ) ); > insert( new Fact( 5 ) ); > insert( new Fact( 6 ) ); > insert( new Fact( 4 ) ); > insert( new Fact( 2 ) ); > end > > rule "Rule 06" > salience 100 > when > $fact : Fact( $prop: prop ) > not Fact( prop < $prop ) > then > System.out.println("Fact.prop: " + $prop); > retract($fact); > end > > On 20/01/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> [Sorry - the previous email "escaped" before I was complete.] >> >> This is a self-contained DRL demonstrating the erroneous handling of >> a condition involving Integer.intValue (same: Number.intValue), not >> and retract, which is meant to sort the integers. This fails with 5.5.0, >> but works correctly with 5.4.0 and previous versions. >> >> rule init >> salience 9999 >> when >> then >> insert( Integer.valueOf( 10 ) ); >> insert( Integer.valueOf( 50 ) ); >> insert( Integer.valueOf( 60 ) ); >> insert( Integer.valueOf( 40 ) ); >> insert( Integer.valueOf( 20 ) ); >> end >> >> rule "Rule 04" >> when >> $number : Integer( $i: intValue ) >> not Integer(intValue < $i) >> then >> System.out.println("Number found with value: " + $number.intValue()); >> retract($number); >> end >> >>> >>> On 17/01/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> This BAD bug was introduced on the way from 5.4.0 to 5.5.0 (and seems >>>> to have sneaked into 6.0.0 as well). >>>> >>>> Only 5.4.0 and predecessors work as expected. >>>> >>>> Damage control? How far can 5.5.0 be trusted? >>>> >>>> >>>> On 17/01/2013, John Smith <ffirstt.llastt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> I am new to Drools and am trying to get the sample program to work. >>>>> This >>>>> sample is given in the drools documentation >>>>> http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.5.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_.... >>>>> This drool rule is expected to sort integers. I just changed the >>>>> numbers >>>>> from what are given in the sample and they do not get sorted as >>>>> expected. >>>>> Tried using drools version 5.5.0, 5.5.1 and the master 6.0.0, but got >>>>> the >>>>> same wrong results. >>>>> >>>>> Following is the main code: >>>>> package com.sample; >>>>> >>>>> public class Example2 { >>>>> public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { >>>>> Number[] numbers = new Number[] { wrap(5), wrap(6), wrap(4), >>>>> wrap(1), wrap(2) }; >>>>> new RuleRunner().runRules(new String[] { "Example3.drl" }, >>>>> numbers); >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> private static Integer wrap(int i) { >>>>> return new Integer(i); >>>>> } >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> The RuleRunner class is the same as given in the example and I do not >>>>> think >>>>> I should give that here, since it will clutter the question. It >>>>> simply >>>>> creates the KnowledgeBase, stateful session, inserts the facts as >>>>> given >>>>> in >>>>> the 'numbers' array above and then calls fireAllRules method on the >>>>> session. >>>>> >>>>> The rule file (Example3.drl) is: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> rule "Rule 04" >>>>> dialect "mvel" >>>>> when >>>>> $number : Number() >>>>> not Number(intValue < $number.intValue) >>>>> then >>>>> System.out.println("Number found with value: " + >>>>> $number.intValue()); >>>>> retract($number); >>>>> end >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The output I get is as follows: >>>>> Loading file: Example3.drl >>>>> Inserting fact: 5 >>>>> Inserting fact: 6 >>>>> Inserting fact: 4 >>>>> Inserting fact: 1 >>>>> Inserting fact: 2 >>>>> Number found with value: 1 >>>>> Number found with value: 4 >>>>> Number found with value: 2 >>>>> Number found with value: 5 >>>>> Number found with value: 6 >>>>> >>>>> Not the correct expected ascending sorted order. >>>>> >>>>> What might I be doing wrong? I cannot imagine that the drools rule >>>>> engine >>>>> would be broken at this basic level. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> View this message in context: >>>>> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Expert-does-not-sort-integers-co... >>>>> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>> >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

We will be releasing 5.6 soon. Mark On 20 Jan 2013, at 17:26, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Isn't this bug hefty enough to render 5.5.0 unusable? > -W > > On 20/01/2013, Mark Proctor <mproctor(a)codehaus.org&gt; wrote: >> We tracked it down to the range indexing iterator, in not and exist >> nodes. >> Should be fixed next week. >> >> Mark >> >> >> On 20 Jan 2013, at 08:23, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Below is another couple of test cases, showing that the problem is not >>> due >>> a getter that isn't called get* - it's a more general problem. As far >>> as >>> I >>> can tell this rule pattern, expecting to fire in ascending order of >>> Fact.prop, is broken in 5.5.0: >>> >>> rule "Rule xx" >>> when >>> $fact: Fact( $prop: prop ) >>> not Fact(prop < $prop) >>> then >>> System.out.println("Fact.prop: " + $prop); >>> retract($fact); >>> end >>> >>> // Test case using String >>> >>> rule init >>> salience 9999 >>> when >>> then >>> insert( "AAA" ); >>> insert( "DDD" ); >>> insert( "EEE" ); >>> insert( "CCC" ); >>> insert( "BBB" ); >>> end >>> >>> rule "Rule 05" >>> when >>> $s : String() >>> not String( this < $s) >>> then >>> System.out.println("String found with value: " + $s ); >>> retract($s); >>> end >>> >>> // Test case using declared type >>> declare Fact >>> prop : long >>> end >>> >>> rule init >>> salience 999 >>> when >>> then >>> insert( new Fact( 1 ) ); >>> insert( new Fact( 5 ) ); >>> insert( new Fact( 6 ) ); >>> insert( new Fact( 4 ) ); >>> insert( new Fact( 2 ) ); >>> end >>> >>> rule "Rule 06" >>> salience 100 >>> when >>> $fact : Fact( $prop: prop ) >>> not Fact( prop < $prop ) >>> then >>> System.out.println("Fact.prop: " + $prop); >>> retract($fact); >>> end >>> >>> On 20/01/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> [Sorry - the previous email "escaped" before I was complete.] >>>> >>>> This is a self-contained DRL demonstrating the erroneous handling of >>>> a condition involving Integer.intValue (same: Number.intValue), not >>>> and retract, which is meant to sort the integers. This fails with >>>> 5.5.0, >>>> but works correctly with 5.4.0 and previous versions. >>>> >>>> rule init >>>> salience 9999 >>>> when >>>> then >>>> insert( Integer.valueOf( 10 ) ); >>>> insert( Integer.valueOf( 50 ) ); >>>> insert( Integer.valueOf( 60 ) ); >>>> insert( Integer.valueOf( 40 ) ); >>>> insert( Integer.valueOf( 20 ) ); >>>> end >>>> >>>> rule "Rule 04" >>>> when >>>> $number : Integer( $i: intValue ) >>>> not Integer(intValue < $i) >>>> then >>>> System.out.println("Number found with value: " + >>>> $number.intValue()); >>>> retract($number); >>>> end >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 17/01/2013, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> This BAD bug was introduced on the way from 5.4.0 to 5.5.0 (and >>>>>> seems >>>>>> to have sneaked into 6.0.0 as well). >>>>>> >>>>>> Only 5.4.0 and predecessors work as expected. >>>>>> >>>>>> Damage control? How far can 5.5.0 be trusted? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17/01/2013, John Smith <ffirstt.llastt(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>>> I am new to Drools and am trying to get the sample program to work. >>>>>>> This >>>>>>> sample is given in the drools documentation >>>>>>> http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.5.0.Final/drools-expert-docs/html_.... >>>>>>> This drool rule is expected to sort integers. I just changed the >>>>>>> numbers >>>>>>> from what are given in the sample and they do not get sorted as >>>>>>> expected. >>>>>>> Tried using drools version 5.5.0, 5.5.1 and the master 6.0.0, but >>>>>>> got >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> same wrong results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Following is the main code: >>>>>>> package com.sample; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> public class Example2 { >>>>>>> public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception { >>>>>>> Number[] numbers = new Number[] { wrap(5), wrap(6), wrap(4), >>>>>>> wrap(1), wrap(2) }; >>>>>>> new RuleRunner().runRules(new String[] { "Example3.drl" }, >>>>>>> numbers); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> private static Integer wrap(int i) { >>>>>>> return new Integer(i); >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> } >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The RuleRunner class is the same as given in the example and I do >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> I should give that here, since it will clutter the question. It >>>>>>> simply >>>>>>> creates the KnowledgeBase, stateful session, inserts the facts as >>>>>>> given >>>>>>> in >>>>>>> the 'numbers' array above and then calls fireAllRules method on the >>>>>>> session. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The rule file (Example3.drl) is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> rule "Rule 04" >>>>>>> dialect "mvel" >>>>>>> when >>>>>>> $number : Number() >>>>>>> not Number(intValue < $number.intValue) >>>>>>> then >>>>>>> System.out.println("Number found with value: " + >>>>>>> $number.intValue()); >>>>>>> retract($number); >>>>>>> end >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The output I get is as follows: >>>>>>> Loading file: Example3.drl >>>>>>> Inserting fact: 5 >>>>>>> Inserting fact: 6 >>>>>>> Inserting fact: 4 >>>>>>> Inserting fact: 1 >>>>>>> Inserting fact: 2 >>>>>>> Number found with value: 1 >>>>>>> Number found with value: 4 >>>>>>> Number found with value: 2 >>>>>>> Number found with value: 5 >>>>>>> Number found with value: 6 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not the correct expected ascending sorted order. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What might I be doing wrong? I cannot imagine that the drools rule >>>>>>> engine >>>>>>> would be broken at this basic level. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> View this message in context: >>>>>>> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-Expert-does-not-sort-integers-co... >>>>>>> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at >>>>>>> Nabble.com. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> rules-users mailing list >>>>>>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> > _______________________________________________ > 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