10:28 a.m.
Consider the following rules:
rule (1)
when
a: Criteria(
$criteriaA : criteriaA,
$criteriaB : criteriaB )
b: Criteria(){
matchCriteriaA == true && criteriaA == $criteriaA
|| matchCriteriaB == true && criteriaB == $criteriaB
}
then
...
end
rule (2)
when
a: Criteria(
$criteriaA : criteriaA,
$criteriaB : criteriaB )
b: Criteria(){
eval(
matchCriteriaA == true && criteriaA == $criteriaA
|| matchCriteriaB == true && criteriaB == $criteriaB
)
}
then
...
end
I am seeing different behavior for the same test cases. I am basically inserting
"a" and "b" with matching criteriaA and criteriaB and I am testing
different
combinations of matchCriteriaA and matchCriteriaB (i.e. F/F, F/T, T/F, T/T).
Results for rule (1):
F/F -> rule activated (incorrect)
T/F -> rule activated (correct)
F/T -> rule activated (correct)
Results for rule (2):
F/F -> rule activated (incorrect)
T/F -> rule activated (correct)
F/T -> rule activated (correct)
Any ideas?
10:50 a.m.
New subject: org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException
Folks,
Using 4.0.1 with stateful session. Getting this
org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException when inserting an object. Any idea
why?
Thanks,
-Sergey
---
org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException
Exception executing predicate
org.drools.base.mvel.MVELPredicateExpression@31c2fd64
Stack Trace:
org.drools.rule.PredicateConstraint.isAllowed(PredicateConstraint.java:1
97)
org.drools.reteoo.AlphaNode.assertObject(AlphaNode.java:122)
org.drools.reteoo.CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(Compo
siteObjectSinkAdapter.java:317)
org.drools.reteoo.ObjectTypeNode.assertObject(ObjectTypeNode.java:160)
org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:176)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:196)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:
70)
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.jav
a:854)
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.jav
a:826)
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.jav
a:627)
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this E-mail message from your computer.
1:06 p.m.
New subject: org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException
Would need to look at your rules to understand the error...
2007/9/4, Manukyan, Sergey <SManukyan(a)lear.com>:
Folks,
Using 4.0.1 with stateful session. Getting this
org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException when inserting an object. Any idea
why?
Thanks,
-Sergey
---
org.drools.RuntimeDroolsException
Exception executing predicate
org.drools.base.mvel.MVELPredicateExpression@31c2fd64
Stack Trace:
org.drools.rule.PredicateConstraint.isAllowed(PredicateConstraint.java:1
97)
org.drools.reteoo.AlphaNode.assertObject(AlphaNode.java:122)
org.drools.reteoo.CompositeObjectSinkAdapter.propagateAssertObject(Compo
siteObjectSinkAdapter.java:317)
org.drools.reteoo.ObjectTypeNode.assertObject(ObjectTypeNode.java:160)
org.drools.reteoo.Rete.assertObject(Rete.java:176)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooRuleBase.assertObject(ReteooRuleBase.java:196)
org.drools.reteoo.ReteooWorkingMemory.doInsert(ReteooWorkingMemory.java:
70)
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.jav
a:854)
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.jav
a:826)
org.drools.common.AbstractWorkingMemory.insert(AbstractWorkingMemory.jav
a:627)
**********************
** LEGAL DISCLAIMER **
**********************
This E-mail message and any attachments may contain
legally privileged, confidential or proprietary
information. If you are not the intended recipient(s),
or the employee or agent responsible for delivery of
this message to the intended recipient(s), you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution
or copying of this E-mail message is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in
error, please immediately notify the sender and
delete this E-mail message from your computer.
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
1:05 p.m.
Yuri,
The syntax with {} is not valid... are you really using that??? or is it
just pseudo-code?
[]s
Edson
2007/9/4, Yuri <ydewit(a)gmail.com>:
Consider the following rules:
rule (1)
when
a: Criteria(
$criteriaA : criteriaA,
$criteriaB : criteriaB )
b: Criteria(){
matchCriteriaA == true && criteriaA == $criteriaA
|| matchCriteriaB == true && criteriaB == $criteriaB
}
then
...
end
rule (2)
when
a: Criteria(
$criteriaA : criteriaA,
$criteriaB : criteriaB )
b: Criteria(){
eval(
matchCriteriaA == true && criteriaA == $criteriaA
|| matchCriteriaB == true && criteriaB == $criteriaB
)
}
then
...
end
I am seeing different behavior for the same test cases. I am basically
inserting
"a" and "b" with matching criteriaA and criteriaB and I am testing
different
combinations of matchCriteriaA and matchCriteriaB (i.e. F/F, F/T, T/F,
T/T).
Results for rule (1):
F/F -> rule activated (incorrect)
T/F -> rule activated (correct)
F/T -> rule activated (correct)
Results for rule (2):
F/F -> rule activated (incorrect)
T/F -> rule activated (correct)
F/T -> rule activated (correct)
Any ideas?
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
1:56 p.m.
Edson Tirelli <tirelli <at> post.com> writes:
Yuri, The syntax with {} is not valid... are you really using
that??? or
is it just pseudo-code? []s Edson
Sorry, it was a typo. I basically simplified my rule manually before sending the
post to the list.
The bottom line is that I cant get such a composite constraint (multiple local
fields + other fields) evaluated correctly.
thanks,
2:15 p.m.
Ok, can you please open a JIRA for me with a test case or description on
how to reproduce?
Thanks,
Edson
2007/9/4, Yuri <ydewit(a)gmail.com>:
Edson Tirelli <tirelli <at> post.com> writes:
> Yuri, The syntax with {} is not valid... are you really using
that??? or
is it just pseudo-code? []s Edson
Sorry, it was a typo. I basically simplified my rule manually before
sending the
post to the list.
The bottom line is that I cant get such a composite constraint (multiple
local
fields + other fields) evaluated correctly.
thanks,
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3529-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
2:45 p.m.
Edson Tirelli <tirelli <at> post.com> writes:
Ok, can you please open a JIRA for me with a test case or
description on
how to reproduce? Thanks, Edson
Created ticket http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1169 and added another
similar scenario.
6340
days inactive
6340
days old
7 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Edson Tirelli -
Manukyan, Sergey -
Yuri