[rules-users] Problems archiving and restoring packages in the BRMS

[Shahad Ahmed]

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the reply. That clears up point 1. I will try and develop a patch
(honest :)). However, I assume the problems in my points 2 and 3 about the
archived package asset itself not showing up in the list of archived assets
in the admin section is a bug; and also the fact that you cannot then
recreate a package with the same name as an archived package via the drl
import mechanism are both bugs?

Regards,
Shahad



On 9/28/07, Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org> wrote:
>
> each asset is currently treated indivually so a package is itself an asset
> like a rule is an asset. Whats needed here is an option, when archiving
> packages, that asks if you would like to archive its configured rules.
>
> patch welcome :)
>
> Mark
> Shahad Ahmed wrote:
>
>  I've come across a few serious usability problems whilst using the import
> and archiving packages functionality in the BRMS. However, before raising a
> JIRA, I thought I'd ask the community if these are expected behaviours, or
> legitimate bugs.
>
> 1. Archiving a package only removes the package definition – all rules etc
> in the package are not archived. Is this the expected behaviour? As a naive
> user I would have expected the package and all its rules etc to be archived.
>
>
> 2. The archived package definition does not show up in the list of
> archived assets under the Admin/Manage Archived Assets option. Is the list
> of archived packages available elsewhere, and if so can you restore an
> archived package again?
>
> 3. I archived a package in the BRMS – which removed the package from the
> listed packages in the BRMS. I then tried to create a new package with the
> same name as the archived (i.e. removed) package using the "Import package
> from drl" option. The new drl package had rules with different names from
> the original rules in the archived package. However, the new package was not
> created from the drl (the new package name does not show up in the list of
> packages), although the new rules in the drl where imported. If you try to
> recreate this, be aware that it wont be obvious the new rules have imported
> as their containing package is not created – and as the imported rules from
> a drl have no category they do not show up in the list of rules, unless you
> search for them by name.
>
> Am I right in thinking that the problem with archiving a package, and then
> failing to recreate the package with the same name using the import
> mechanism is a bug, or is there something subtle I'm missing with this
> behaviour?
>
> Regards
> Shahad
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing listrules-users at lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rules-users mailing list
> rules-users at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20070929/c7a1dcbe/attachment.html