[rules-users] Shadow fact problem?
Edson Tirelli
tirelli at post.com
Wed Mar 21 12:55:41 EDT 2007
Thank you Michael,
I will take a look as soon as possible.
[]s
Edson
Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
>T'is done Edson,
>
>http://jira.jboss.com/jira/browse/JBRULES-744
>
>Although I couldn't assign it to you.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
>Sent: 20 March 2007 12:12
>To: Rules Users List
>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem?
>
>
> Mike,
>
> May I ask you please to open a JIRA for that, attaching your sample
>code? Also, either assign the ticket for me or let me know the ticket
>number after you open it.
>
> I will take a detailed look.
>
> Thank you,
> Edson
>
>Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
>
>
>
>>Hi Edson,
>>
>>I've tested branch in SVN but have to report that the following does
>>
>>
>not
>
>
>>work as expected:-
>>
>>** Java
>>
>>Machine mt1=new Machine();
>>mt1.setDescription("Test Machine");
>>Attribute at1=new Attribute("TEST1", 5);
>>Attribute at2=new Attribute("TEST2", 25);
>>mt1.addAttribute(at1); // <-- A machine contains an ArrayList of
>>Attributes
>>mt1.addAttribute(at2); // <-- A machine contains an ArrayList of
>>Attributes
>>wm.assertObject(mt1);
>>wm.assertObject(at1);
>>wm.assertObject(at2);
>>
>>** Rules
>>
>>rule "Test 1a" // <-- Works OK
>>when
>> $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" )
>>then
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> Adding new Attribute(\"TEST3\") to
>>Machine");
>> Attribute a = new Attribute("TEST3", 100);
>> $m.addAttribute(a);
>> assertLogical(a);
>>end
>>
>>rule "Test 1b" // <-- Does not activate
>>when
>> $a : Attribute ( name == "TEST3" )
>> $m : Machine ( attributesList contains $a )
>>then
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> Found machine with new
>>Attribute");
>>End
>>
>>The following rule does however work which suggests a problem with
>>"contains"(?):-
>>
>>rule "Test 1c" // <-- Does activate
>>when
>> $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" )
>> $a1 : Attribute ( name == "TEST1", parent == $m )
>> $a2 : Attribute ( name == "TEST2", parent == $m )
>> $a3 : Attribute ( name == "TEST3", parent == $m )
>>then
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $m.toString());
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a1.toString());
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a2.toString());
>>end
>>
>>Also, the following type of syntax appears problematic:-
>>
>>rule "Test 2"
>>when
>> $m : Machine ( description == "Test Machine" )
>> $a1 : Attribute ( name == "TEST1", parent == $m )
>> $a2 : Attribute ( name == "TEST2", parent == $m )
>>then
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $m.toString());
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a1.toString());
>> System.out.println("DEBUG---> " + $a2.toString());
>>End
>>
>>This particular example works OK (all facts asserted outside of rules)
>>however this (real life) example does not:-
>>
>>rule "Material - Lock Pressure Modifier"
>>salience 849
>>when
>> MaterialEntry ( $m : material )
>> $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_PROCESS_TOTAL_XY,
>>$txy : number )
>> $a2 : Attribute ( name ==
>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent ==
>>
>>
>$m
>
>
>>)
>>then
>> Attribute a = new
>>Attribute(Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, m);
>> assertLogical(a);
>> $m.addAttribute(a);
>>end
>>
>>rule "Material - Clamping Force"
>>salience 848
>>when
>> MaterialEntry ( $m : material )
>> $a1 : Attribute( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_PROCESS_TOTAL_XY,
>>$txy : number ) // <--
>>
>>
>Same as
>
>
>>above
>> $a2 : Attribute( name ==
>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent ==
>>
>>
>$m
>
>
>>) // <-- Same as above
>>//(a) $a3 : Attribute( name ==
>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number,
>>parent == $m ) // <-- Asserted above
>>//(b) $a3 : Attribute( name ==
>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number )
>>then
>> System.out.println("DEBUG--->" + $a2.getParent());
>> System.out.println("DEBUG--->" + $a3.getParent());
>>end
>>
>>If line "//(a)" is used the rule does not fire; if rule "//(b)" is used
>>instead (i.e. the RHS does not check the "parent" property) the rule
>>triggers. However the two debug lines show "$a2.getParent()" and
>>"$a3.getParent()" point to the same object - one "parent == $m" worked
>>the other (asserted by a rule) does not appear to work.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Anstis, Michael (M.)
>>Sent: 15 March 2007 12:34
>>To: 'Rules Users List'
>>Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem?
>>
>>Hi Edson,
>>
>>Don't worry Edson - you have enough to do to excuse missing a question.
>>
>>I don't want to put the check into the consequence - oh no, but as
>>
>>
>given
>
>
>>by my examples the rule "A" never fires when its in the LHS. I wanted
>>
>>
>to
>
>
>>check my understanding that rule "A" should work the same as rule "B"
>>with the difference being that the condition is handled by the RETE
>>network and not some hacky code in the RHS. I am planning on checking
>>both in trunk tonight - unfortunately family matters mean I can't spend
>>too much time on the computer in the evenings and I was only able to
>>play with Maven last night.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Mike
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>>[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson Tirelli
>>Sent: 15 March 2007 12:08
>>To: Rules Users List
>>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem?
>>
>>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Sorry, I missed your previous message... why are you moving the
>>
>>
>check
>
>
>>into the consequence? As you already realized, that is not a good
>>solution...
>> Did you tried your original rule in trunk? Bug is still there?
>>
>> []s
>> Edson
>>
>>Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Sorry to push Edson,
>>>
>>>The performance degradation from having the "parental check" in the
>>>
>>>
>RHS
>
>
>>>versus the LHS is (expectedly) terrific. We have thousands of
>>>"attributes" relating to different parent objects and having the rule
>>>activate for every combination is causing performance problems. Moving
>>>the RHS into a LHS "eval" would be no better either.
>>>
>>>On a different matter, I have successfully installed the source with
>>>Maven (thanks Mark) and can debug trunk in Eclipse at home!
>>>
>>>With kind regards,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Anstis, Michael (M.)
>>>Sent: 14 March 2007 12:28
>>>To: 'Rules Users List'
>>>Subject: RE: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem?
>>>
>>>OK, Edson, I will try to check it out (I'm having problems accessing
>>>subversion from work so will try from home).
>>>
>>>Whilst trying to implement a workaround though I may have discovered
>>>another problem (which might have been fixed too):-
>>>
>>>rule "A"
>>>when
>>> MaterialEntry ( $m : material )
>>> $a2 : Attribute( name ==
>>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number, parent ==
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>$m
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>)
>>> $a3 : Attribute( name ==
>>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number,
>>>parent == $m )
>>>then
>>> System.out.println("Rule A"); //<-- Never fires
>>>end
>>>
>>>rule "B"
>>>when
>>> MaterialEntry ( $m : material )
>>> $a2 : Attribute( name ==
>>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE, $mlp : number )
>>> $a3 : Attribute( name ==
>>>Constants.ATTRIBUTES_MATERIAL_LOCK_PRESSURE_MODIFIER, $lpm : number )
>>>Then
>>> if($a2.getParent() == $m && $a3.getParent() == $m) {
>>> System.out.println("Rule B"); //<-- Fires
>>> }
>>>end
>>>
>>>If the check for "parent" being equal across $m, $a2 and $a3 is in the
>>>LHS the rule doesn't activate. However if check is in the RHS the rule
>>>is OK.
>>>
>>>Any thoughts or views (Edson)?
>>>
>>>Thanks,
>>>
>>>Mike
>>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
>>>[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Edson
>>>
>>>
>Tirelli
>
>
>>>Sent: 13 March 2007 22:57
>>>To: Rules Users List
>>>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Shadow fact problem?
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike,
>>>
>>> Yes, that is a "shadow fact unwanted side-effect" (nice name for a
>>>bug hm? :) ), but I remember fixing something similar as part of
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>another
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>ticket I was working on. Is it possible for you to verify if the
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>problem
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>is happening in trunk?
>>> If it is still hapenning, let me know and I will fix it.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Edson
>>>
>>>Anstis, Michael (M.) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>>
>>>>I am running 3.1-M1 and have (by way of example) two simple rules; A
>>>>and B as follows:-
>>>>
>>>> *rule* "A"
>>>> *when*
>>>> $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_A, $pa :
>>>> number )
>>>> $a2 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_B, $nc :
>>>> number )
>>>> $p : Process ( attributesList* contains* $a1,
>>>> attributesList* contains* $a2 )
>>>> *then*
>>>> * double* txy = doSomeMaths($pa, $nc, $p);
>>>> Attribute a =* new* Attribute(Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>txy);
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> $p.addAttribute(a);
>>>> * assertLogical*(a);
>>>> * modify*($p);
>>>> System.out.println("Rule 'A' fired");
>>>> *end*
>>>>
>>>> *rule* "B"
>>>> *when*
>>>> $a1 : Attribute ( name == Constants.ATTRIBUTES_C, $txy :
>>>> number)
>>>> $p : Process( attributesList* contains* $a1 )
>>>> // <-- Line causing rule not to activate
>>>>
>>>> *then*
>>>> * double* m = doSomeMoreMaths($txy, $p);
>>>> System.out.println("Rule 'B' fired");
>>>> *end*
>>>>
>>>>Process exposes an ArrayList of Attribute objects (each having a
>>>>name\value pair).
>>>>
>>>>When the content of the ArrayList held by Process is added to (Rule
>>>>'A') the next rule (Rule 'B') is not being activated.
>>>>
>>>>Can anybody provide any insight into how best a workaround can be
>>>>engineered?
>>>>
>>>>With kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>Mike
>>>>
>>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>
>-
>
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>-
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>-
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>rules-users mailing list
>>>>rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
--
Edson Tirelli
Software Engineer - JBoss Rules Core Developer
Office: +55 11 3124-6000
Mobile: +55 11 9218-4151
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
More information about the rules-users
mailing list