Has it been reported in a JIRA ticket? That's the best way to get it reported and fixed Thanks Davide -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/how-is-Integer-converted-when-comparing... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Hi, this is definitively a bug and I will start working asap to fix it. By the way which version of Drools are you using? I think that in your case null has exactly the same semantic of NaN. It means that any comparison against it ( even currentLateCount <= Integer.MAX_VALUE ) shouldn't match. As a side note let me underline that in my opinion something like the following: mpgong wrote is profoundly wrong and there's no reason that could drive me to model something in that way. That is true also and especially in plain Java: try to use a condition like if ( currentLateCount < 100 ) { ... } in your Java code when currentLateCount is null and you will see that the only result you will get is a shining NullPointerException. Of course, since the LHS part of Drools rules is a declarative language, I wouldn't do the same there (even if I am tempted to), but as I said only end up with a non matching pattern. Nevertheless, even if Drools wouldn't suffer of the bug you reported, my advice is to review your decision and try to avoid to give a semantic meaning to a number set to null. Thanks for having reported that. Mario -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/how-is-Integer-converted-when-comparing... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

DRL, followed by results from 5.2.0,5.3.0, 5.4.0 Cheers Wolfgang declare Cont val:Integer end rule makeFacts salience 999999 when then insert( new Cont() ); end rule "val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE" when $c: Cont( val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE ) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end rule "Integer.MIN_VALUE <= val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE" when $c: Cont( Integer.MIN_VALUE <= val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE ) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end rule "1 < val < 10" when $c: Cont( 1 < val < 10 ) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end rule "1 < val < 1" when $c: Cont( 1 < val < 1 ) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end rule "val > 1 && val < 10" when $c: Cont( val > 1 && val < 10 ) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end rule "val > 1 && < 10" when $c: Cont( val > 1 && < 10) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end rule "val > 1, val < 10" when $c: Cont( val > 1, val < 10) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end For comparison reasons, one run with val == 5: ================================ val > 1, val < 10 fires val > 1 && < 10 fires 1 < val && val < 10 fires 1 < val < 10 fires Integer.MIN_VALUE <= val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires ================================ Below: val == null ================================ 5.4.0: 1 < val < 10 fires Integer.MIN_VALUE <= val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires -------------------------------- 5.3.0: 1 < val < 10 fires Integer.MIN_VALUE <= val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires -------------------------------- 5.2.0: Unable to build constraint as '1' is invalid : [Rule name='1 < val && val < 10'] ==> Change constraint to val > 1 && val < 10 1 < val < 10 fires Integer.MIN_VALUE <= val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires val <= Integer.MAX_VALUE fires -------------------------------- 5.1.1 doesn't accept several of these expressions, so not run. On 27/09/2012, Wolfgang Laun <wolfgang.laun(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Wolfgang, thanks for having tried this, but following your examples I made some further tests (on the master branch) end it seems to me that constraints in the from lowerBound < value < upperBuond are not working at all regardless of the fact if value is null or not. For instance I tried declare Cont val:Integer end rule makeFacts salience 999999 when then insert( new Cont( 2 ) ); end rule "3 < val < 10" when $c: Cont( 3 < val < 10 ) then System.out.println( drools.getRule().getName() + " fires" ); end and this last rule fires even if val is set to 2 (while it doesn't if I rewrite the pattern as: Cont( val > 3 && < 10 ) ). I am just guessing now, but it seems to me that instead of testing lowerBound < value < upperBuond it is actually only checking lowerBound < upperBuond because the only way to avoid that the rule fires is to write a pattern like: Cont( 11 < val < 10 ) Moreover I cannot find any doc stating that we are supporting that format of constraints, neither any test in our code base using them. Can you confirm that this constraint format should be supported by Drools? If so I will try to fix it asap. Mario -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/how-is-Integer-converted-when-comparing... Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

On 27/09/2012, Mario Fusco <mario.fusco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I am just guessing now, I can confirm your findings. (I should have tested with another nonnull value outside of the range.) But as it is, it's just another bug: not diagnosing and compiling in spite of a syntax error. Ha! Not finding any documentation doesn't mean a thing. I *think* there was a discussion (on the path from 5.2.0 onwards) about permitting such (weird) forms of constraints, but I am not sure at all. Can you confirm I'd suggest you just fix the parser so it doesn't accept this and diagnoses an error. Thanks Wolfgang