Why is it seeing it as a new object? I am asserting it into the working memory before hand. ________________________________ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 1:27 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Double highDutyTotal is a new fact inside of your consequence, so when you call modify, it's actually working as an assert - you are not doing a modify there at all. Mark Matthew Shaw wrote: Hi there, seeing some very strange behaviour from the following rule rule "sum higher rate totals" salience 970 no-loop true when timesheet : TimesheetTransferObject( ) total : SheetTotalTransferObject($ihrisType : ihrisType -> ($ihrisType.equals(ihrisType.getDutyHourTotal())), $payRate : payRate -> ($payRate.equals(timesheet.getOfficer().getSubstantiativeRate()) == false)) eval(total.getValue().doubleValue() > 0) highDutyTotal : Double( ) then highDutyTotal = new Double(DateUtils.addElapsedTimes(highDutyTotal.doubleValue(), total.getValue().doubleValue())); modify(highDutyTotal) end In my test the rule fires twice when I don't call modify. Which is the expected behaviour because I have two unqiue SheetTotalTransferObject objects. However when I call modify on the Double object the rule only runs once. This is incorrect behaviour. Can anyone offer any clues as to what may be happening here. Is it to do with my use of the Double type? This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.

ok point taken. I have modified my rule so that it looks at an object and I modify a property on that object instead as follows: But still the same issue. rule "sum higher rate totals" salience 970 no-loop true when timesheet : TimesheetTransferObject( ) total : SheetTotalTransferObject($ihrisType : ihrisType -> ($ihrisType.equals(ihrisType.getDutyHourTotal())), $payRate : payRate -> ($payRate.equals(timesheet.getOfficer().getSubstantiativeRate()) == false)) eval(total.getValue().doubleValue() > 0) higherDutyTotal : DutyHourTotal( ) then higherDutyTotal.setNrHours(DateUtils.addElapsedTimes(higherDutyTotal.get NrHours(), total.getValue().doubleValue())); modify(higherDutyTotal); end ________________________________ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:17 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Double It's standard java pass by reference stuff: String a = "xxx"; String b = a; System.out.println( b ); // gives "xxx" a = "yyyy"; System.out.println( b ); // still gives "xxx" Mark Matthew Shaw wrote: Why is it seeing it as a new object? I am asserting it into the working memory before hand. ________________________________ From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 1:27 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Double highDutyTotal is a new fact inside of your consequence, so when you call modify, it's actually working as an assert - you are not doing a modify there at all. Mark Matthew Shaw wrote: Hi there, seeing some very strange behaviour from the following rule rule "sum higher rate totals" salience 970 no-loop true when timesheet : TimesheetTransferObject( ) total : SheetTotalTransferObject($ihrisType : ihrisType -> ($ihrisType.equals(ihrisType.getDutyHourTotal())), $payRate : payRate -> ($payRate.equals(timesheet.getOfficer().getSubstantiativeRate()) == false)) eval(total.getValue().doubleValue() > 0) highDutyTotal : Double( ) then highDutyTotal = new Double(DateUtils.addElapsedTimes(highDutyTotal.doubleValue(), total.getValue().doubleValue())); modify(highDutyTotal) end In my test the rule fires twice when I don't call modify. Which is the expected behaviour because I have two unqiue SheetTotalTransferObject objects. However when I call modify on the Double object the rule only runs once. This is incorrect behaviour. Can anyone offer any clues as to what may be happening here. Is it to do with my use of the Double type? This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland. ________________________________ _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.

Hi Scott, My understanding is that the rule will only fire twice regardless because there are only two "SheetTotal" objects in working memory which is stopping the rule from going into infinite recursion. The no-loop attribute is also behaving correctly as it is not letting the engine add it back onto the Agenda. What is interesting however is that in this case the modify is behaving exactly as if I were to retract and then assert the DutyHourTotal object. -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:48 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Double Matthew Shaw's message received 5/29/2007 9:39 PM: This modify call tells the rule engine to "look at this DutyHourTotal object again." The rule should just keep firing. If there were some condition on the DutyHourTotal that eventually was false it would stop but I am surprised you only see it fire twice and not forever. Perhaps there are side effects of setNrHours() that cause one of the other conditions to fail. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.

I think I understand what's going on finally. At first parse of the rule the engine is seeing that all conditions are met and adding to a tuple. On calling modify I think two things are happening. 1. The DutyHourTotal object has changed and it is infact adding it to the tuple. 2. But it is then also removing it because there already exists a tuple for that unique combination of facts. -----Original Message----- From: rules-users-bounces(a)lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-bounces@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Scott Reed Sent: Wednesday, 30 May 2007 11:48 AM To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Double Matthew Shaw's message received 5/29/2007 9:39 PM: This modify call tells the rule engine to "look at this DutyHourTotal object again." The rule should just keep firing. If there were some condition on the DutyHourTotal that eventually was false it would stop but I am surprised you only see it fire twice and not forever. Perhaps there are side effects of setNrHours() that cause one of the other conditions to fail. _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users This correspondence is for the named persons only. It may contain confidential or privileged information or both. No confidentiality or privilege is waived or lost by any mis transmission. If you receive this correspondence in error please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender. You must not disclose, copy or relay on any part of this correspondence, if you are not the intended recipient. Any opinions expressed in this message are those of the individual sender except where the sender expressly, and with the authority, states them to be the opinions of the Department of Emergency Services, Queensland.