[rules-users] Re: You must see this, guys...new bug? defining rules saturday night made me mad?

[Edson Tirelli]

    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 at gmail.com <mmquelo at gmail.com>:
>
>
> 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 at post.com> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:e6dd5ba30802161533m1d6e035cq9e12dd1b148fa71 at 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 at gmail.com <mmquelo at gmail.com>:
> >
> >
> > 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 at 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://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
>
>


-- 
  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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20080217/e5710f3b/attachment.html