3:30 p.m.
Using Drools Expert 5.0.1
The following rule fires both when the "not" is there, and also if the
"not" is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is something
wrong somewhere.
I've narrowed it down to the testing of the $parentEmploymentId declaration - the
AccountHolder CE, which is inside the context of the "not", is referencing
$parentEmploymentId, which is declared outside the "not".
If the indicated line is commented out, then the expression behaves sensibly (i.e. fires
either when the "not" is used, or when it isn't, but not both). However, an
important business semantic element is then missing from the rule.
Is this a bug in Drools, or am I misusing something?
rule "RS7713.9.2_"
when
Employment ( $parentEmploymentId : myId )
not # if the not is commented out, the rule still fires!!!!
(
AccountHolder
(
$parentEmployerInfoId : myId
, parentId == $parentEmploymentId # if this line is commented, it
behaves sensibly (per the 'not'), but misses an important business semantic
)
and
BusinessName
(
parentId == $parentEmployerInfoId
, lines contains "DISTRESS"
)
)
then
;
end
Tom Murphy
Business Process Consultant
Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform
800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266
MAC: X2301-01B
Office: 515 324 4853 | Mobile: 515 423 4334
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have
received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
4:18 a.m.
This is not entirely true: you may have different objects in memory in such
a way that both fires rule. In this case, if you had two (or more!)
AccountHolders for the same Employment, each of those having different
BusinessName's associated, both rules (with and without the 'not') would
fire.
Does that make sense?
_ miguel
2010/5/5 <Tom.E.Murphy(a)wellsfargo.com>
The following rule fires both when the “not” is there, and also if
the
“not” is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is something
wrong somewhere.
--
"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"
5:34 a.m.
Actually, in the light of day, I see why it behaved as it did. It doesn't seem to be
caused by the AccountHolder as such, but more the Employment object - if there are two of
them, one with an accountholder and BusinessName that met the criteria, and one without,
then the rule will fire whether the not is used or not, just on different instances of
Employment.
Thanks for triggering the thought process, Miguel.
Tom Murphy
Business Process Consultant
Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform
800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266
MAC: X2301-01B
Office: 515 324 4853 | Mobile: 515 423 4334
This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the
addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy,
disclose, or take any action based on this message or any information herein. If you have
received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and
delete this message. Thank you for your cooperation.
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of miguel machado
Sent: Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:19 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Bug in "not" ???
This is not entirely true: you may have different objects in memory in such a way that
both fires rule. In this case, if you had two (or more!) AccountHolders for the same
Employment, each of those having different BusinessName's associated, both rules (with
and without the 'not') would fire.
Does that make sense?
_ miguel
2010/5/5 <Tom.E.Murphy@wellsfargo.com<mailto:Tom.E.Murphy@wellsfargo.com>>
The following rule fires both when the "not" is there, and also if the
"not" is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is something
wrong somewhere.
--
"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"
10:27 a.m.
glad i could help.
_ miguel
2010/5/6 <Tom.E.Murphy(a)wellsfargo.com>
Actually, in the light of day, I see why it behaved as it did. It
doesn’t
seem to be caused by the AccountHolder as such, but more the Employment
object – if there are two of them, one with an accountholder and
BusinessName that met the criteria, and one without, then the rule will fire
whether the not is used or not, just on different instances of Employment.
Thanks for triggering the thought process, Miguel.
*Tom Murphy*
*Business Process Consultant
Wells Fargo HCFG - CORE Deal Decisioning Platform
800 S. Jordan Creek Parkway | West Des Moines, IA 50266
MAC: **X2301-01B**
**Office: **515 324 4853** | **Mobile: 515 423 4334**
**This message may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If
you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee,
you must not use, copy, disclose, or take any action based on this message
or any information herein. If you have received this message in error,
please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this
message. Thank you for your cooperation.*
*From:* rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:
rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *miguel machado
*Sent:* Thursday, May 06, 2010 4:19 AM
*To:* Rules Users List
*Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Bug in "not" ???
This is not entirely true: you may have different objects in memory in such
a way that both fires rule. In this case, if you had two (or more!)
AccountHolders for the same Employment, each of those having different
BusinessName's associated, both rules (with and without the 'not') would
fire.
Does that make sense?
_ miguel
2010/5/5 <Tom.E.Murphy(a)wellsfargo.com>
The following rule fires both when the “not” is there, and also if the
“not” is commented out. Clearly, both cannot be true, so there is something
wrong somewhere.
--
"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
"To understand what is recursion you must first understand recursion"
5318
days inactive
5319
days old
3 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
miguel machado -
Tom.E.Murphy＠wellsfargo.com