[rules-users] rule flow --> possible bug?

[Manukyan, Sergey]

Thank you for explanations, it did clear up the picture for me, but I
still didn't resolve the problem that I am having. Looks like problem
happens when attributes are involved in a Split. Possible bug?

 

So here is an example:

 

 

 

I am inserting initially a simple TestValid class that has boolean
hasError attribute = false;

 

insert(new TestValid(false));

 

INIT ruleflow-group just prints out the facts :

 

rule "INIT"

      ruleflow-group "INIT" no-loop

      when

            $v : TestValid()

      then 

            System.out.println("INIT : HAS ERROR ? : " +
$v.isHasErrors());

end

 

The "Make Error" ruleflow-group is activated when hasError attribute is
flase in estValid fact :

 

rule "Make Error"

      ruleflow-group "Make Error" no-loop

      when

            $v : TestValid(hasErrors == false)

      then 

            System.out.println("Make Error!!!");

            $v.setHasErrors(true);

            retract($v);

            insert($v);

end

 

 

The "Has Error?" XOR Split has the following constraints:

-         TestValid(hasErrors == false)      // goes to "No Errors"
Action

-         TestValid(hasErrors == true)      // goes to END

 

 

The Actions Just print out information :

-         System.out.println("Init Action");

-         System.out.println("No Errors Action");

 

 

When running example I was expecting to see the following events as seen
on console:

 

<START>

Init Action

INIT : HAS ERROR ? : false

No Errors Action

Make Error!!!

Init Action

INIT : HAS ERROR ? : true

<END>

 

 

Instead that is what I see:

 

<START>

Init Action

INIT : HAS ERROR ? : false

No Errors Action

Make Error!!!

Init Action

INIT : HAS ERROR ? : true

No Errors Action

Init Action

No Errors Action

Init Action

...

<infinitely goes like this>

 

 

Now is this again expected behavior or a possible bug?

 

If it is expected then how can I make decisions based on attribute of a
fact in a Split...

 

Thank you,

 

-Sergey

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

From: rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 8:37 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] rule flow

 

true, damn :)

I did think of an attribute to "re-activate" any rules that are true,
but not currently on the agenda - but not sure about it yet, would have
to think on the negative effects some more.

Mark
Kris Verlaenen wrote: 

> use the rule attribute "lock-on-active" to stop this behaviour, it
stops a rule re-activating while the ruleflowgroup is active

Well, this won't work for the same reason no-loop isn't working: if you
use lock-on-active, it will make sure that the rule is not reactivated,
so the execution of the node will end after one increment.  But the
lock-on-active makes sure that no activation is ever created, so, in the
context of looping in ruleflow, even if the RuleSet node is activated
again afterwards, it will never increment the integer again (as you
prevented reactivation of the rule using lock-on-active), resulting in
an endless loop in this case.  Currently, as far as I know, the only
thing that works is manually deactivating the ruleflow-group.

 

Kris

 



________________________________



 
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users at lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
  

 



**********************
** 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070917/7ce0eb76/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 13945 bytes
Desc: image002.jpg
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070917/7ce0eb76/attachment.jpe