[rules-users] "==" not work for big int value

[Mark Proctor]

On 03/12/2010 03:16, Zeke wrote:
> I tried it. 5.1.1 also not works.
As this is using a nested accessor it would be an MVEL bug. I would 
create a failing test for MVEL and submit a bug:
"sec.fir.i == 2147483647"

The MVEL author will not fix things unless there is a jira with a 
failing test to prove it's a bug.

You can see lots of sample MVEL tests here:
http://www.java2s.com/Open-Source/Java-Document/Scripting/mvel/org/mvel/tests/main/CoreConfidenceTests.java.htm

If it was a direct accessor then it would be evaluate with the Drools 
evuluators, it might be good to check that those are ok too, or if they 
are bugged:
sec.i == 2147483647

Mark
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> 2010/11/22 Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org 
> <mailto:mproctor at codehaus.org>>
>
>     On 22/11/2010 01:03, Zeke wrote:
>>     Why int need be cast to BigInteger? 2147483647 is a valid int
>>     value. In normal java program, if a is a int variable, and assign
>>     its value to 2147483647, a == 2147483647 is true.
>     Try this on 5.1, see if it works there first.
>
>     Mark
>
>>
>>     Thanks!
>>
>>
>>     2010/11/19 Mark Proctor <mproctor at codehaus.org
>>     <mailto:mproctor at codehaus.org>>
>>
>>         On 19/11/2010 01:34, Zeke wrote:
>>>         Can anyone help me?
>>>
>>>         Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 16 November 2010 09:57, Zeke <xanadu860122 at gmail.com
>>>         <mailto:xanadu860122 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Hi,
>>>               I'm using Drools 4.0.7. I find "==" operator does not
>>>             work for big int value (like 2147483647). The condition
>>>             is like "sec.fir.i == 2147483647". I attach my test
>>>             code. With my simple testing, it seems that it does not
>>>             work for comparsion with int constant from 1000000001 to
>>>             2147483647. Is it a bug of drools? I have already tested
>>>             long and BigInteger do not have this kind of problem.
>>>
>>         I suspect Drools 4.0.x did n't have big integer and big
>>         decimal coercion.
>>
>>         Mark
>>>
>>>
>>>             Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         _______________________________________________
>>>         rules-users mailing list
>>>         rules-users at lists.jboss.org  <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>>>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>         _______________________________________________
>>         rules-users mailing list
>>         rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>>         https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     rules-users mailing list
>>     rules-users at lists.jboss.org  <mailto:rules-users at lists.jboss.org>
>>     https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     rules-users mailing list
>     rules-users at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20101203/958fb86d/attachment.html