[rules-dev] NPE with nested patterns

[Mauricio Salatino]

But wait a second..
If you comment out another and inside the rule it will also work.. that
means that it's not the pattern inside the last AND


On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Mario Fusco <mario.fusco at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mauricio,
>
> I am seeing exactly what you wrote.
> What I have found until now is that the harming pattern is inside the last
> and block (the one starting at line 218 of the single big rule and ending
> at 235), indeed if you comment away that block the test succeeds.
>
> I'll keep you updated on my further findings.
>
> Mario
>
> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mauricio Salatino <salaboy at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Mario, I was looking at that problem too.
>> Notice that if you remove some of the ANDs, the rule will work without
>> throwing the null pointer exception.
>> Which makes me think that it could be related with the number of
>> declarations or how the patterns are being arranged for that specific case.
>> The null pointer is raised when a hashcode is being calculated for a
>> declaration that doesn't have an object assigned, for some reason it's not
>> there.
>> One of the tests shows how we have splitted the rule in multiple rules
>> showing that each individual group of patterns is correct.. which make me
>> think again about the number of patterns and/or declarations can be causing
>> the issue.
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Keep us posted about your findings.. we can probably learn how to solve
>> these problems and stop bothering you :)
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Mario Fusco <mario.fusco at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> I am going to give a look at it.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Esteban Aliverti <
>>> esteban.aliverti at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Guys,
>>>> I'm having a NPE in one of the rules I'm using and I can't find the
>>>> cause.
>>>> I'm attaching a test project that shows the problem.
>>>> Basically, I have 1 rule that contains some nested 'ands' and 'ors'
>>>> patterns. The rule is being auto-generated from some data, that is why it
>>>> has this strange structure.
>>>> We tried to refactor the rule by separating it in different
>>>> rules, extract some common factors, etc. and in some cases it works.
>>>> So I'm not sure whether the original rule is wrong or if I'm hitting a
>>>> bug in Drools.
>>>> Inside the test project you can find the original rule
>>>> (SimpleHighRiskSepsis.drl) and all the other refactors we did.
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>>
>>>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>>>>
>>>> Esteban Aliverti
>>>> - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com
>>>> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> rules-dev mailing list
>>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>
>>  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rules-dev mailing list
>> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-dev mailing list
> rules-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
>
>


-- 
 - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
 - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar

 - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-dev/attachments/20120315/ace5a83d/attachment-0001.html