[rules-users] Help! Activations firing out of salience order

[Edson Tirelli]

   This was a duplicate of https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3111 that
was fixed last week. It will be released in 5.3.0.final.

   Edson

2011/10/18 Swindells, Thomas <TSwindells at nds.com>

> Ouch looks like we and anybody on 5.1.1 needs to desperately update then.*
> ***
>
> Though I am rather concerned by this issue
> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3211  “Rules fires on incorrect
> condition” – has this been looked at/is the issue correct as a rules engine
> which fires random rules when it shouldn’t would be problematic!****
>
> ** **
>
> Thomas****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org [mailto:
> rules-users-bounces at lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Wolfgang Laun
> *Sent:* 18 October 2011 11:05
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Help! Activations firing out of salience
> order****
>
> ** **
>
> There used to be a subtle bug in the PriorityHeapQueue containing the
> activations.
>
> See https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3044
>
> -W****
>
> 2011/10/18 Swindells, Thomas <TSwindells at nds.com>****
>
> In our project we have been experiencing a large number of intermittent
> unit test failures when we are testing our rules (on drools 5.1.1).****
>
> After a lot of debugging, examining our rules for logic errors,
> experimenting and generally scratching our head trying to work out what is
> wrong, we have noticed that sometimes (but very intermittently) activations
> are firing in the wrong order.****
>
>  ****
>
> In our rulebase we have two rules, Rule A salience 80 and Rule B salience
> 70. Whilst debugging we made Rule A and B are identical other than rule B
> having some additional constraints on the end. ****
>
> Dumping out the agenda events we have observed the following actions
> occurring:****
>
> BEFORE_FIRED rule X****
>
> CREATED_ACTIVATION Rule A****
>
> CREATED_ACTIVATION Rule B****
>
> AFTER_FIRED rule X****
>
>  ****
>
> … (no references to either rule/activation)****
>
>  ****
>
> BEFORE_FIRED Rule B****
>
> CANCELLED Rule A****
>
> AFTER_FIRED Rule B****
>
>  ****
>
> How can Rule B be firing before Rule A when both activations exist?****
>
> Does anybody know of any bugs in 5.1.1 that may be causing this? ****
>
> We have a branch of code on 5.3 and that also has had intermittent unit
> test failures, we’ve not had chance to examine whether this is the same
> pattern or just a different logic issue.****
>
>  ****
>
> Please help,****
>
>  ****
>
> Thomas****
>
>  ****
>
>  ****
>
> ** **
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> **************************************************************************************
> This message is confidential and intended only for the addressee. If you
> have received this message in error, please immediately notify the
> postmaster at nds.com and delete it from your system as well as any copies.
> The content of e-mails as well as traffic data may be monitored by NDS for
> employment and security purposes. To protect the environment please do not
> print this e-mail unless necessary.
>
> NDS Limited. Registered Office: One London Road, Staines, Middlesex, TW18
> 4EX, United Kingdom. A company registered in England and Wales. Registered
> no. 3080780. VAT no. GB 603 8808 40-00
>
> **************************************************************************************
> ****
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
  JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20111018/37bc0596/attachment.html