[rules-users] Salience problems

[Chris Selwyn]

Thanks very much Wolfgang... that appears to fix it.

Chris

On 28/04/2011 06:51, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
> This has indeed been discovered recently, for certain scenarios where 
> activations were queued in the wrong order after fact modification.
>
> The fix is in 
> ./drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java:
>
> --- a/drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java
> +++ b/drools-core/src/main/java/org/drools/core/util/BinaryHeapQueue.java
> @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ public class BinaryHeapQueue
>                  compareToParent = compare( this.elements[index],
>                                             this.elements[index / 2] );
>              }
> -            if ( index > 1 && compareToParent < 0 ) {
> +            if ( index > 1 && compareToParent > 0 ) {
>                  percolateUpMaxHeap( index );
>              } else {
>                  percolateDownMaxHeap( index );
>
>
> -W
>
>
>
> 2011/4/27 Tihomir Surdilovic <tsurdilo at redhat.com 
> <mailto:tsurdilo at redhat.com>>
>
>     Hi Chris,
>     since you mention to already have a support license for JBoss
>     Enterprise BRMS, the best place to ask these types of questions is
>     at the excellent JBoss Customer Support Portal
>     (https://access.redhat.com/home) where your question will be
>     handled under SLAs ensuring timely response and continuous quality
>     assurance monitoring of the same.
>
>     Just FYI, I believe the issue you are mentioning has been fixed in
>     trunk (see Jira https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2942)
>     which should make the fix available in the next BRMS 5.2 release.
>     Please confirm with the Red Hat support engineers through a
>     support case as they are much more knowledgeable on product
>     releases, and direct any further questions regarding the supported
>     BRMS bits to them.
>
>     If there are any further issues that you would like to see
>     prioritized for the supported BRMS bits you are using, we will be
>     glad to work with you through the JBoss Customer Support Portal.
>
>     Thanks.
>     Tihomir
>
>
>
>     On 4/27/11 2:31 PM, Chris Selwyn wrote:
>>     I am finding that the "salience" feature is acting very erratically.
>>
>>     Some of my rules modify the working memory. So I would like them
>>     to execute before the others that simply read the memory after
>>     modification and report on certain data conditions that are left
>>     after all modifications have happened.
>>
>>     The "modifying" rules have a salience of 5. The "reading" rules
>>     have a salience of 0.
>>
>>     Using the rules logging I can see activations of my modifying
>>     rules being created and activations of the reading rules being
>>     created.
>>     And I can see "reading" rules (with salience 0) being executed
>>     /before/ "modifying" rules (with salience 5) even though no other
>>     activations are being created in between them.
>>
>>     I am not using agenda groups or anything "fancy" like that.
>>
>>     Debugging through the code I can see the "MAIN" agenda group is a
>>     queue organised as heap.
>>     However, the order in which things happen is very
>>     non-deterministic (presumably due to hashing or something like
>>     that) and I am finding it very difficult to actually pin down an
>>     actual 100% reproducible case.
>>
>>     Is there any known problem with the salience mechanism?
>>
>>     I am using JBoss Rules 5.1.0 (with a support licence).
>>
>>     Chris Selwyn
>>
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     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
>
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
> Version: 10.0.1325 / Virus Database: 1500/3601 - Release Date: 04/27/11
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20110429/3bd0fead/attachment.html