Look at this.... I have got a "ContractWrapper" fact inserted into WM. It wraps a "Contract" object and some "enums" fields. One of these fields is "upronto": * public * *class* ContractWrapper *extends* BaseOmPersistentWithAssignedId{ Contract mycontract=*null*; ... Pronto upronto = *null*; *...* *<getters and setters....>* ... } "upronto" is an insance of a "Pronto" java enum: * public * *enum* Pronto {* N *,* UNKNOWN *,* Y *; } "Pronto" can be : (Y, N, UNKNOWN) Here is the rule which reasons over this enum: (ofcourse I have got a Request into WM as well) *rule "ScorePronto" dialect "mvel" ruleflow-group "Scoring" when $r:Request( $mc:mainContract != null ) $cw_p:ContractWrapper($c_w_p:mycontract == $mc, eval(upronto != Pronto.Y))* * then System.out.println("Test Result: "+($cw_p.upronto == Pronto.Y)) end* Any guesses for the output??? Well.... *Test Result: true* HOW COMES??????????????????? I mean ... the test "eval(upronto != Pronto.Y)" returned "true".... It means that the rule engine sees upronto <> Pronto.Y!, doesn't it??!!!! *So... why do I get "upronto == Pronto.Y" in the RHS????* What the.........&$%%&()%%$/%£....sorry....but having these kind of problems during saturday night is not so pleaseant! T-T I really hope you can help me with a workaround to this issue. Bye Massi _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

I think I got the point.... This is the rule (table generated) which sets the "upronto" field. *(It should have been fired in a previous ruleflow-node)* *package com.rules.ConsolidateData;* *#generated from Decision Table* *import com.engine.wrappers.ContractWrapper;* *import com.engine.enums.Pronto;* *#From row number: 13* *rule "Pronto_13"* *(RULEFLOW GROUP IS MISSING!!!!!)* ** *when* *cw: ContractWrapper(mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y", mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y")* *then* *cw.setUpronto(Pronto.Y);* *System.out.println("PS1"+cw.getMycontract().getId());* *end* I think I DEFINED "THE RULEFLOW-GROUP" IN THE WRONG WAY in the .xls table!!! *So, I think... the **Pronto_13 **rule has been fired after the ScorePronto rule.* I tell you how I defined it.... In the same column where I have "Ruleset", "Import" and "Variables" I put "RULEFLOW-GROUP" as well...it is as follows: |Ruleset | ... | |Import | ...import ... ContractWrapper...| |Variables | ... | |RULEFLOW-GROUP | Scoring | <--- HERE! Is it correct? I thought this is what was meant in http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1077 In case this were not the problem I really would not know what to do.... now I go to sleep... here in rome is quite late! I hope tomorrow to work it out. Thank You for your Help Edson! Buona notte. Massi "Edson Tirelli" <tirelli(a)post.com&gt; ha scritto nel messaggio news:e6dd5ba30802161533m1d6e035cq9e12dd1b148fa71@mail.gmail.com... Need to see the full test case to be able to understand if it is a bug or not, because the expression in the LHS is using the ShadowProxy, while the one in the RHS is not... so, it may be a bug or it may not... depends when and how you are setting the upronto field. []s Edson 2008/2/16, mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mmquelo(a)gmail.com&gt;: > > > Look at this.... > > I have got a "ContractWrapper" fact inserted into WM. > > It wraps a "Contract" object and some "enums" fields. > > One of these fields is "upronto": > > > * > > public > **class* ContractWrapper *extends* BaseOmPersistentWithAssignedId{ > > Contract > mycontract=*null*; > > ... > > Pronto upronto = *null*; > > *...* > > *<getters and setters....>* > > ... > > } > > > > "upronto" is an insance of a "Pronto" java enum: > > > * > > public > **enum* Pronto {* > > N > *,* > > UNKNOWN > *,* > > Y > *; > > } > > > "Pronto" can be : (Y, N, UNKNOWN) > > Here is the rule which reasons over this enum: > (ofcourse I have got a Request into WM as well) > > *rule "ScorePronto" > dialect "mvel" > ruleflow-group "Scoring" > when > $r:Request( $mc:mainContract != null ) > $cw_p:ContractWrapper($c_w_p:mycontract == $mc, eval(upronto != > Pronto.Y))* > * then > System.out.println("Test Result: "+($cw_p.upronto == Pronto.Y)) > end* > > Any guesses for the output??? > > Well.... > > *Test Result: true* > > HOW COMES??????????????????? > > I mean ... the test "eval(upronto != Pronto.Y)" returned "true".... It > means that the rule > engine sees upronto <> Pronto.Y!, doesn't it??!!!! > > *So... why do I get "upronto == Pronto.Y" in the RHS????* > > What the.........&$%%&()%%$/%£....sorry....but having these > kind of problems during saturday night is not so pleaseant! > > T-T > > I really hope you can help me with a workaround to this issue. > > Bye > > Massi > > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development Office: +55 11 3529-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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

Morning Edson! Thank You for your reply! I have already added the "Update()". I added it in the ACTION column following the column where i set the "upronto" field. But then it produces an infinite Loop! It updates the upronto and the rule fires again.... so the infinite loop starts! Should I avoid using decision tables? Should I use a sequential algorithm instead of rete?? Should I clear the agenda? So far I have never seen any .xls decision table using the update()! Every time I use the update in a decision table I get back a loop. Bye bye Massi ----- Original Message ----- *From:* Edson Tirelli <tirelli(a)post.com&gt; *Newsgroups:* gmane.comp.java.drools.user *To:* mmquelo(a)gmail.com ; Rules Users List <rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; *Sent:* Sunday, February 17, 2008 9:55 AM *Subject:* Re: Re: You must see this,guys...new bug? defining rules saturday night made me mad? I don't know about your ruleflow question, but you seems to be missing an update() call that will cause exactly the behavior you are describing: ** *when* *cw: ContractWrapper(mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y", mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y")* *then* *cw.setUpronto(Pronto.Y);* *update( cw ); // <--------- * *System.out.println("PS1"+cw.getMycontract().getId());* *end* Without the update call, the LHS of the rules will never see the attribute change. This is expected behavior. The RHS of the rules always see the actual attribute values though, since shadow proxies are only used in LHS. []s Edson 2008/2/16, mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mmquelo(a)gmail.com&gt;: > > > I think I got the point.... > > This is the rule (table generated) which sets the "upronto" field. > > *(It should have been fired in a previous ruleflow-node)* > > > *package com.rules.ConsolidateData;* > > *#generated from Decision Table* > > *import com.engine.wrappers.ContractWrapper;* > > *import com.engine.enums.Pronto;* > > *#From row number: 13* > > *rule "Pronto_13"* > > *(RULEFLOW GROUP IS MISSING!!!!!)* > > ** > > *when* > > *cw: ContractWrapper(mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y", > mycontract.serviceDetail.pronto == "Y")* > > *then* > > *cw.setUpronto(Pronto.Y);* > > *System.out.println("PS1"+cw.getMycontract().getId());* > > *end* > > I think I DEFINED "THE RULEFLOW-GROUP" IN THE WRONG WAY in the .xls > table!!! > > *So, I think... the **Pronto_13 **rule has been fired after the ScorePronto > rule.* > > I tell you how I defined it.... > > In the same column where I have "Ruleset", "Import" and "Variables" I > put "RULEFLOW-GROUP" as well...it is as follows: > > |Ruleset | ... > | > |Import | ...import ... ContractWrapper...| > |Variables | ... > | > |RULEFLOW-GROUP | Scoring | > <--- HERE! > > > Is it correct? > > I thought this is what was meant in > http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-1077 > > In case this were not the problem I really would not know what to do.... > now I go to sleep... here in rome is quite late! > > I hope tomorrow to work it out. > > Thank You for your Help Edson! > > Buona notte. > > Massi > > "Edson Tirelli" <tirelli(a)post.com&gt; ha scritto nel messaggio > news:e6dd5ba30802161533m1d6e035cq9e12dd1b148fa71@mail.gmail.com... > > Need to see the full test case to be able to understand if it is a > bug or not, because the expression in the LHS is using the ShadowProxy, > while the one in the RHS is not... so, it may be a bug or it may not... > depends when and how you are setting the upronto field. > > []s > Edson > > > 2008/2/16, mmquelo(a)gmail.com <mmquelo(a)gmail.com&gt;: > > > > > > Look at this.... > > > > I have got a "ContractWrapper" fact inserted into WM. > > > > It wraps a "Contract" object and some "enums" fields. > > > > One of these fields is "upronto": > > > > > > * > > > > public > > **class* ContractWrapper *extends* BaseOmPersistentWithAssignedId{ > > > > Contract > > mycontract=*null*; > > > > ... > > > > Pronto upronto = *null*; > > > > *...* > > > > *<getters and setters....>* > > > > ... > > > > } > > > > > > > > "upronto" is an insance of a "Pronto" java enum: > > > > > > * > > > > public > > **enum* Pronto {* > > > > N > > *,* > > > > UNKNOWN > > *,* > > > > Y > > *; > > > > } > > > > > > "Pronto" can be : (Y, N, UNKNOWN) > > > > Here is the rule which reasons over this enum: > > (ofcourse I have got a Request into WM as well) > > > > *rule "ScorePronto" > > dialect "mvel" > > ruleflow-group "Scoring" > > when > > $r:Request( $mc:mainContract != null ) > > $cw_p:ContractWrapper($c_w_p:mycontract == $mc, eval(upronto != > > Pronto.Y))* > > * then > > System.out.println("Test Result: "+($cw_p.upronto == Pronto.Y)) > > end* > > > > Any guesses for the output??? > > > > Well.... > > > > *Test Result: true* > > > > HOW COMES??????????????????? > > > > I mean ... the test "eval(upronto != Pronto.Y)" returned "true".... It > > means that the rule > > engine sees upronto <> Pronto.Y!, doesn't it??!!!! > > > > *So... why do I get "upronto == Pronto.Y" in the RHS????* > > > > What the.........&$%%&()%%$/%£....sorry....but having these > > kind of problems during saturday night is not so pleaseant! > > > > T-T > > > > I really hope you can help me with a workaround to this issue. > > > > Bye > > > > Massi > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > rules-users mailing list > > rules-users(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > > > > > -- > Edson Tirelli > JBoss Drools Core Development > Office: +55 11 3529-6000 > Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 > JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development Office: +55 11 3529-6000 Mobile: +55 11 9287-5646 JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ 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