2:27 p.m.
My project involves rule creation by customers, business analysts, and developers. We
have a base set of rules that fire for every transaction and then we fire custom rules
within a stateful session. An issue I've started to run into is rules being created
that fire endlessly. I initialize the session with an event listener that we use to
extract all rules fired for each line item of a transaction. Once the session is
initialized and all rules from various agenda groups loaded we do a fireall rules.
My questions are:
1) how can I detect I have a runaway rule/rules.
Is there a method or listener that could detect this for me? Does anyone have a formula
they use to do so? I had thought that I could use my event listener that I track the
rules with to grab the last X number of rules fires and see if rule y gets fired more that
z times. But is there a simpler method?
2) once I've detected a runaway rule, how can I gracefully stop drools rule execution?
I read of the command drools.halt in different posts, but not sure if this would be what
I'm looking at doing.
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thank you!
Dean
StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
buildOutgoingStatefulKnowledgeSession(supportingUDTList);
// AgendaEventListener agendaListener = new HipaaAgendaListener();
ksession.addEventListener(_ruleLog);
for (int i = 0; i < _agendaGroups.size(); i++)
{
if (_log.isDebugEnabled()) _log.debug("Focus on Agenda Group " +
_agendaGroups.get(i));
ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup(_agendaGroups.get(i)).setFocus();
// Fire them all
try
{
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
_log.error("FireAllRules exception. Error=" + e.getMessage()); // error
}
}
5:19 p.m.
On 30 August 2011 14:27, Dean Whisnant <dean(a)basys.com> wrote:
My project involves rule creation by customers, business analysts,
and
developers. We have a base set of rules that fire for every transaction and
then we fire custom rules within a stateful session. An issue I've started
to run into is rules being created that fire endlessly. I initialize the
session with an event listener that we use to extract all rules fired for
each line item of a transaction. Once the session is initialized and all
rules from various agenda groups loaded we do a fireall rules.
My questions are:
1) how can I detect I have a runaway rule/rules.
Is there a method or listener that could detect this for me? Does
anyone have a formula they use to do so? I had thought that I could use my
event listener that I track the rules with to grab the last X number of
rules fires and see if rule y gets fired more that z times. But is there a
simpler method?
It's not even as simple as that. ;-) Multiple firing of a rule r within n
firings may not be loops if this happens with different facts bound to
patterns.
2) once I've detected a runaway rule, how can I gracefully stop
drools rule
execution? I read of the command drools.halt in different posts, but not
sure if this would be what I'm looking at doing.
If you detect it during a consequence execution, throw an exception and
catch it with a custom consequence exception handler.
Using a limit on fire all rules might be another way, in combination with
logging all activations.
Finally, someone with a little savvy should be able to detect some just by
looking at them. The telltale marks are well known...
-W
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thank you!
Dean
StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
buildOutgoingStatefulKnowledgeSession(supportingUDTList);
// AgendaEventListener agendaListener = new
HipaaAgendaListener();
ksession.addEventListener(_ruleLog);
for (int i = 0; i < _agendaGroups.size(); i++)
{
if (_log.isDebugEnabled()) _log.debug("Focus on
Agenda Group " + _agendaGroups.get(i));
ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup(_agendaGroups.get(i)).setFocus();
// Fire them all
try
{
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
_log.error("FireAllRules exception. Error="
+ e.getMessage()); // error
}
}
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
6:48 p.m.
Wolfgang,
Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. My current implementation does have a limited
number of rules we would expect to fire, with little chance of multiple firings. I
understand the beauty of the way the engine re-evaluates and re-fires if needed
(oversimplification).
After posing the question here I dug into the javadocs and saw that fireallrules accepts
and int for the max activations and returns an int of the number of activations. I feel
pretty comfortable using this method and comparing the in and out ints to be able to do
some exception handling (email notifications of issues).
If anyone else has other possible solutions/formulas they would use to determine a rule is
running away I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.
I agree, the person with a bit of savvy would detect the errors themselves, but the nature
of my application is that the firing is cloud based and somewhat invisible to the rule
creators. What I hope to be able to do with halting the process and informing them of
runaways is that they can then review their log of rules fired for each transaction and
either resolve the rule issue themselves or contact others who can assist them. The one
we had last week had created a 6 Gb rules fired log before anyone was suspicious that
there was an issue. :O
Again, thank you for the wonderful feedback!
Dean
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On
Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
On 30 August 2011 14:27, Dean Whisnant <dean@basys.com<mailto:dean@basys.com>>
wrote:
My project involves rule creation by customers, business analysts, and developers. We
have a base set of rules that fire for every transaction and then we fire custom rules
within a stateful session. An issue I've started to run into is rules being created
that fire endlessly. I initialize the session with an event listener that we use to
extract all rules fired for each line item of a transaction. Once the session is
initialized and all rules from various agenda groups loaded we do a fireall rules.
My questions are:
1) how can I detect I have a runaway rule/rules.
Is there a method or listener that could detect this for me? Does anyone have a
formula they use to do so? I had thought that I could use my event listener that I track
the rules with to grab the last X number of rules fires and see if rule y gets fired more
that z times. But is there a simpler method?
It's not even as simple as that. ;-) Multiple firing of a rule r within n firings may
not be loops if this happens with different facts bound to patterns.
2) once I've detected a runaway rule, how can I gracefully stop drools rule execution?
I read of the command drools.halt in different posts, but not sure if this would be what
I'm looking at doing.
If you detect it during a consequence execution, throw an exception and catch it with a
custom consequence exception handler.
Using a limit on fire all rules might be another way, in combination with logging all
activations.
Finally, someone with a little savvy should be able to detect some just by looking at
them. The telltale marks are well known...
-W
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thank you!
Dean
StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
buildOutgoingStatefulKnowledgeSession(supportingUDTList);
// AgendaEventListener agendaListener = new HipaaAgendaListener();
ksession.addEventListener(_ruleLog);
for (int i = 0; i < _agendaGroups.size(); i++)
{
if (_log.isDebugEnabled()) _log.debug("Focus on Agenda Group
" + _agendaGroups.get(i));
ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup(_agendaGroups.get(i)).setFocus();
// Fire them all
try
{
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
_log.error("FireAllRules exception. Error=" +
e.getMessage()); // error
}
}
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
8:14 p.m.
I would also suggest that you add a "no-loop" directive to each one of
your rules, at least to the ones "written" by the end-users (if I
understood correctly).
As I have (painfully) found, it is extremely easy to produce never-ending
loops on (end)user-created rules.
-Stathis
Dean Whisnant wrote:
Wolfgang,
Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. My current implementation does
have a limited number of rules we would expect to fire, with little chance
of multiple firings. I understand the beauty of the way the engine
re-evaluates and re-fires if needed (oversimplification).
After posing the question here I dug into the javadocs and saw that
fireallrules accepts and int for the max activations and returns an int of
the number of activations. I feel pretty comfortable using this method
and comparing the in and out ints to be able to do some exception handling
(email notifications of issues).
If anyone else has other possible solutions/formulas they would use to
determine a rule is running away I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.
I agree, the person with a bit of savvy would detect the errors
themselves, but the nature of my application is that the firing is cloud
based and somewhat invisible to the rule creators. What I hope to be able
to do with halting the process and informing them of runaways is that they
can then review their log of rules fired for each transaction and either
resolve the rule issue themselves or contact others who can assist them.
The one we had last week had created a 6 Gb rules fired log before anyone
was suspicious that there was an issue. :O
Again, thank you for the wonderful feedback!
Dean
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Laun
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
On 30 August 2011 14:27, Dean Whisnant
<dean@basys.com<mailto:dean@basys.com>> wrote:
My project involves rule creation by customers, business analysts, and
developers. We have a base set of rules that fire for every transaction
and then we fire custom rules within a stateful session. An issue I've
started to run into is rules being created that fire endlessly. I
initialize the session with an event listener that we use to extract all
rules fired for each line item of a transaction. Once the session is
initialized and all rules from various agenda groups loaded we do a
fireall rules.
My questions are:
1) how can I detect I have a runaway rule/rules.
Is there a method or listener that could detect this for me? Does
anyone have a formula they use to do so? I had thought that I
could use my event listener that I track the rules with to grab the
last X number of rules fires and see if rule y gets fired more that
z times. But is there a simpler method?
It's not even as simple as that. ;-) Multiple firing of a rule r within n
firings may not be loops if this happens with different facts bound to
patterns.
2) once I've detected a runaway rule, how can I gracefully stop drools
rule execution? I read of the command drools.halt in different posts, but
not sure if this would be what I'm looking at doing.
If you detect it during a consequence execution, throw an exception and
catch it with a custom consequence exception handler.
Using a limit on fire all rules might be another way, in combination with
logging all activations.
Finally, someone with a little savvy should be able to detect some just by
looking at them. The telltale marks are well known...
-W
Any thoughts are appreciated.
Thank you!
Dean
StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
buildOutgoingStatefulKnowledgeSession(supportingUDTList);
// AgendaEventListener agendaListener = new
HipaaAgendaListener();
ksession.addEventListener(_ruleLog);
for (int i = 0; i < _agendaGroups.size(); i++)
{
if (_log.isDebugEnabled()) _log.debug("Focus on
Agenda Group " + _agendaGroups.get(i));
ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup(_agendaGroups.get(i)).setFocus();
// Fire them all
try
{
ksession.fireAllRules();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
_log.error("FireAllRules exception. Error="
+ e.getMessage()); // error
}
}
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@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
9:58 a.m.
I've found no-loop to be pretty much completely useless.
It only stops the rule from triggering itself, but it doesn't stop loops where
multiple rules
constantly trigger each other. Eg when they both depend on and modify the same fact.
Individually with no-loop they would both work fine, but combined together you get into a
loop.
Thomas
-----Original Message-----
From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-
bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of rouvas(a)mm.di.uoa.gr
Sent: 30 August 2011 19:15
To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
I would also suggest that you add a "no-loop" directive to each one of your
rules, at least to the ones "written" by the end-users (if I understood
correctly).
As I have (painfully) found, it is extremely easy to produce never-ending
loops on (end)user-created rules.
-Stathis
Dean Whisnant wrote:
> Wolfgang,
>
> Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. My current implementation
> does have a limited number of rules we would expect to fire, with
> little chance of multiple firings. I understand the beauty of the way
> the engine re-evaluates and re-fires if needed (oversimplification).
>
> After posing the question here I dug into the javadocs and saw that
> fireallrules accepts and int for the max activations and returns an
> int of the number of activations. I feel pretty comfortable using
> this method and comparing the in and out ints to be able to do some
> exception handling (email notifications of issues).
>
> If anyone else has other possible solutions/formulas they would use to
> determine a rule is running away I'd be interested in hearing your ideas.
>
> I agree, the person with a bit of savvy would detect the errors
> themselves, but the nature of my application is that the firing is
> cloud based and somewhat invisible to the rule creators. What I hope
> to be able to do with halting the process and informing them of
> runaways is that they can then review their log of rules fired for
> each transaction and either resolve the rule issue themselves or contact
others who can assist them.
> The one we had last week had created a 6 Gb rules fired log before
> anyone was suspicious that there was an issue. :O
>
> Again, thank you for the wonderful feedback!
>
> Dean
>
> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
> [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang
> Laun
> Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
> To: Rules Users List
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
>
> On 30 August 2011 14:27, Dean Whisnant
> <dean@basys.com<mailto:dean@basys.com>> wrote:
> My project involves rule creation by customers, business analysts, and
> developers. We have a base set of rules that fire for every
> transaction and then we fire custom rules within a stateful session.
> An issue I've started to run into is rules being created that fire
> endlessly. I initialize the session with an event listener that we
> use to extract all rules fired for each line item of a transaction.
> Once the session is initialized and all rules from various agenda
> groups loaded we do a fireall rules.
>
> My questions are:
> 1) how can I detect I have a runaway rule/rules.
> Is there a method or listener that could detect this for me?
> Does anyone have a formula they use to do so? I had thought that I
> could use my event listener that I track the rules with to grab the
> last X number of rules fires and see if rule y gets fired more that z
> times. But is there a simpler method?
>
> It's not even as simple as that. ;-) Multiple firing of a rule r
> within n firings may not be loops if this happens with different facts
> bound to patterns.
>
>
> 2) once I've detected a runaway rule, how can I gracefully stop drools
> rule execution? I read of the command drools.halt in different posts,
> but not sure if this would be what I'm looking at doing.
>
> If you detect it during a consequence execution, throw an exception
> and catch it with a custom consequence exception handler.
>
> Using a limit on fire all rules might be another way, in combination
> with logging all activations.
>
> Finally, someone with a little savvy should be able to detect some
> just by looking at them. The telltale marks are well known...
>
> -W
>
>
> Any thoughts are appreciated.
>
> Thank you!
>
> Dean
> StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
> buildOutgoingStatefulKnowledgeSession(supportingUDTList);
> // AgendaEventListener agendaListener = new
> HipaaAgendaListener();
> ksession.addEventListener(_ruleLog);
>
> for (int i = 0; i < _agendaGroups.size(); i++)
> {
> if (_log.isDebugEnabled()) _log.debug("Focus on
> Agenda Group " + _agendaGroups.get(i));
>
ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup(_agendaGroups.get(i)).setFocus();
> // Fire them all
> try
> {
> ksession.fireAllRules();
> }
> catch (Exception e)
> {
> _log.error("FireAllRules exception.
Error="
> + e.getMessage()); // error
> }
> }
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@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
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you have received
this message in error, please immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from
your system as well as any copies. The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be
monitored by NDS for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please
do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18 4EX, United
Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603
8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
10:31 a.m.
Swindells, Thomas wrote:
I've found no-loop to be pretty much completely useless.
It only stops the rule from triggering itself, but it doesn't stop loops
where multiple rules
Correct. I suggested "no-loop" exactly from preventing the same rule to
fire in a loop.
Another road to follow, could be to using agenda groups for user generated
rules.
-Stathis
constantly trigger each other. Eg when they both depend on and modify
the
same fact.
Individually with no-loop they would both work fine, but combined together
you get into a loop.
Thomas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-
> bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of rouvas(a)mm.di.uoa.gr
> Sent: 30 August 2011 19:15
> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
>
> I would also suggest that you add a "no-loop" directive to each one of
> your
> rules, at least to the ones "written" by the end-users (if I understood
> correctly).
>
> As I have (painfully) found, it is extremely easy to produce
> never-ending
> loops on (end)user-created rules.
>
> -Stathis
>
> Dean Whisnant wrote:
> > Wolfgang,
> >
> > Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. My current implementation
> > does have a limited number of rules we would expect to fire, with
> > little chance of multiple firings. I understand the beauty of the way
> > the engine re-evaluates and re-fires if needed (oversimplification).
> >
> > After posing the question here I dug into the javadocs and saw that
> > fireallrules accepts and int for the max activations and returns an
> > int of the number of activations. I feel pretty comfortable using
> > this method and comparing the in and out ints to be able to do some
> > exception handling (email notifications of issues).
> >
> > If anyone else has other possible solutions/formulas they would use to
> > determine a rule is running away I'd be interested in hearing your
> ideas.
> >
> > I agree, the person with a bit of savvy would detect the errors
> > themselves, but the nature of my application is that the firing is
> > cloud based and somewhat invisible to the rule creators. What I hope
> > to be able to do with halting the process and informing them of
> > runaways is that they can then review their log of rules fired for
> > each transaction and either resolve the rule issue themselves or
> contact
> others who can assist them.
> > The one we had last week had created a 6 Gb rules fired log before
> > anyone was suspicious that there was an issue. :O
> >
> > Again, thank you for the wonderful feedback!
> >
> > Dean
> >
> > From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
> > [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang
> > Laun
> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
> > To: Rules Users List
> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
> >
> > On 30 August 2011 14:27, Dean Whisnant
> > <dean@basys.com<mailto:dean@basys.com>> wrote:
> > My project involves rule creation by customers, business analysts, and
> > developers. We have a base set of rules that fire for every
> > transaction and then we fire custom rules within a stateful session.
> > An issue I've started to run into is rules being created that fire
> > endlessly. I initialize the session with an event listener that we
> > use to extract all rules fired for each line item of a transaction.
> > Once the session is initialized and all rules from various agenda
> > groups loaded we do a fireall rules.
> >
> > My questions are:
> > 1) how can I detect I have a runaway rule/rules.
> > Is there a method or listener that could detect this for me?
> > Does anyone have a formula they use to do so? I had thought that I
> > could use my event listener that I track the rules with to grab the
> > last X number of rules fires and see if rule y gets fired more that z
> > times. But is there a simpler method?
> >
> > It's not even as simple as that. ;-) Multiple firing of a rule r
> > within n firings may not be loops if this happens with different facts
> > bound to patterns.
> >
> >
> > 2) once I've detected a runaway rule, how can I gracefully stop drools
> > rule execution? I read of the command drools.halt in different posts,
> > but not sure if this would be what I'm looking at doing.
> >
> > If you detect it during a consequence execution, throw an exception
> > and catch it with a custom consequence exception handler.
> >
> > Using a limit on fire all rules might be another way, in combination
> > with logging all activations.
> >
> > Finally, someone with a little savvy should be able to detect some
> > just by looking at them. The telltale marks are well known...
> >
> > -W
> >
> >
> > Any thoughts are appreciated.
> >
> > Thank you!
> >
> > Dean
> > StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
> > buildOutgoingStatefulKnowledgeSession(supportingUDTList);
> > // AgendaEventListener agendaListener = new
> > HipaaAgendaListener();
> > ksession.addEventListener(_ruleLog);
> >
> > for (int i = 0; i < _agendaGroups.size(); i++)
> > {
> > if (_log.isDebugEnabled()) _log.debug("Focus on
> > Agenda Group " + _agendaGroups.get(i));
> >
> ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup(_agendaGroups.get(i)).setFocus();
> > // Fire them all
> > try
> > {
> > ksession.fireAllRules();
> > }
> > catch (Exception e)
> > {
> > _log.error("FireAllRules exception.
> Error="
> > + e.getMessage()); // error
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > rules-users mailing list
> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@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
**************************************************************************************
This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you
have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies.
The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for
employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not
print this e-mail unless necessary.
NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18
4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered
no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
**************************************************************************************
10:55 a.m.
Swindells, Thomas wrote:
> I've found no-loop to be pretty much completely useless.
> It only stops the rule from triggering itself, but it doesn't stop
> loops where multiple rules
Correct. I suggested "no-loop" exactly from preventing the same rule to fire
in a loop.
[Swindells, Thomas] My point is that generally isn't particularly
helpful as it is
exceedingly brittle, doesn't do what the name suggests and is useless as soon
as any other rules modify the same object.
Another road to follow, could be to using agenda groups for user generated
rules.
-Stathis
> constantly trigger each other. Eg when they both depend on and modify
> the same fact.
> Individually with no-loop they would both work fine, but combined
> together you get into a loop.
>
> Thomas
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-
>> bounces(a)lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of rouvas(a)mm.di.uoa.gr
>> Sent: 30 August 2011 19:15
>> To: rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
>>
>> I would also suggest that you add a "no-loop" directive to each one
>> of your rules, at least to the ones "written" by the end-users (if I
>> understood correctly).
>>
>> As I have (painfully) found, it is extremely easy to produce
>> never-ending loops on (end)user-created rules.
>>
>> -Stathis
>>
>> Dean Whisnant wrote:
>> > Wolfgang,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the thoughts and suggestions. My current implementation
>> > does have a limited number of rules we would expect to fire, with
>> > little chance of multiple firings. I understand the beauty of the
>> > way the engine re-evaluates and re-fires if needed (oversimplification).
>> >
>> > After posing the question here I dug into the javadocs and saw that
>> > fireallrules accepts and int for the max activations and returns an
>> > int of the number of activations. I feel pretty comfortable using
>> > this method and comparing the in and out ints to be able to do some
>> > exception handling (email notifications of issues).
>> >
>> > If anyone else has other possible solutions/formulas they would use
>> > to determine a rule is running away I'd be interested in hearing
>> > your
>> ideas.
>> >
>> > I agree, the person with a bit of savvy would detect the errors
>> > themselves, but the nature of my application is that the firing is
>> > cloud based and somewhat invisible to the rule creators. What I
>> > hope to be able to do with halting the process and informing them
>> > of runaways is that they can then review their log of rules fired
>> > for each transaction and either resolve the rule issue themselves
>> > or
>> contact
>> others who can assist them.
>> > The one we had last week had created a 6 Gb rules fired log before
>> > anyone was suspicious that there was an issue. :O
>> >
>> > Again, thank you for the wonderful feedback!
>> >
>> > Dean
>> >
>> > From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org
>> > [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang
>> > Laun
>> > Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2011 11:20 AM
>> > To: Rules Users List
>> > Subject: Re: [rules-users] Trapping runaway rules
>> >
>> > On 30 August 2011 14:27, Dean Whisnant
>> > <dean@basys.com<mailto:dean@basys.com>> wrote:
>> > My project involves rule creation by customers, business analysts,
>> > and developers. We have a base set of rules that fire for every
>> > transaction and then we fire custom rules within a stateful session.
>> > An issue I've started to run into is rules being created that fire
>> > endlessly. I initialize the session with an event listener that we
>> > use to extract all rules fired for each line item of a transaction.
>> > Once the session is initialized and all rules from various agenda
>> > groups loaded we do a fireall rules.
>> >
>> > My questions are:
>> > 1) how can I detect I have a runaway rule/rules.
>> > Is there a method or listener that could detect this for me?
>> > Does anyone have a formula they use to do so? I had thought that I
>> > could use my event listener that I track the rules with to grab the
>> > last X number of rules fires and see if rule y gets fired more that
>> > z times. But is there a simpler method?
>> >
>> > It's not even as simple as that. ;-) Multiple firing of a rule r
>> > within n firings may not be loops if this happens with different
>> > facts bound to patterns.
>> >
>> >
>> > 2) once I've detected a runaway rule, how can I gracefully stop
>> > drools rule execution? I read of the command drools.halt in
>> > different posts, but not sure if this would be what I'm looking at
doing.
>> >
>> > If you detect it during a consequence execution, throw an exception
>> > and catch it with a custom consequence exception handler.
>> >
>> > Using a limit on fire all rules might be another way, in
>> > combination with logging all activations.
>> >
>> > Finally, someone with a little savvy should be able to detect some
>> > just by looking at them. The telltale marks are well known...
>> >
>> > -W
>> >
>> >
>> > Any thoughts are appreciated.
>> >
>> > Thank you!
>> >
>> > Dean
>> > StatefulKnowledgeSession ksession =
>> > buildOutgoingStatefulKnowledgeSession(supportingUDTList);
>> > // AgendaEventListener agendaListener = new
>> > HipaaAgendaListener();
>> > ksession.addEventListener(_ruleLog);
>> >
>> > for (int i = 0; i < _agendaGroups.size(); i++)
>> > {
>> > if (_log.isDebugEnabled()) _log.debug("Focus
>> > on Agenda Group " + _agendaGroups.get(i));
>> >
>>
ksession.getAgenda().getAgendaGroup(_agendaGroups.get(i)).setFocus();
>> > // Fire them all
>> > try
>> > {
>> > ksession.fireAllRules();
>> > }
>> > catch (Exception e)
>> > {
>> > _log.error("FireAllRules exception.
>> Error="
>> > + e.getMessage()); // error
>> > }
>> > }
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > rules-users mailing list
>> > rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@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
>
>
>
**********************************************************
************
> **************** This message is confidential and intended only for
> the addressee. If you have received this message in error, please
> immediately notify the postmaster(a)nds.com and delete it from your
> system as well as any copies.
> The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS
> for employment and security purposes. To protect the environment
> please do not print this e-mail unless necessary.
>
> NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex,
> TW18 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales.
> Registered no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
>
**********************************************************
************
> ****************
>
4622
days inactive
4623
days old
6 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Dean Whisnant -
rouvas＠mm.di.uoa.gr -
Swindells, Thomas -
Wolfgang Laun