[rules-users] Rule does not fire when JBPM asks to do so in BPMN 2.0 process

Alberto R. Galdo argaldo at gmail.com
Thu Feb 9 12:18:13 EST 2012 

2012/2/8 Esteban Aliverti <esteban.aliverti at gmail.com>

> This is a tricky one :)


Indeed it was! ;-)

I've made the changes as sugested and it works like a charm.

What you say about the process being created and executed *before* the
correponding fact is inserted into the session now totally makes sense to
me.

Thank you very much!





>
> What is happening is that you are running the process first and inserting
> the process instance later.
> When the process is started, it runs until it finds the Rule Task. At that
> point, since there is no activation for any of the rules in "jobs
> group" (there is no ProcessInstance inserted yet, so there is no activation
> for "job complete" rule) the execution continues (since you are already
> inside a fireAllRules() invocation) until the process reaches the end or a
> wait-state. At that point, the control is returned to the original rule
> that started the process and the ProcessInstance is finally inserted.
> What you can do is to split the creation of the process instance and its
> execution:
>
> rule "New case"
>     when
>         $case : Case(processed==false) from entry-point "case stream"
>
>     then
>         modify ($case){
>             setProcessed(true)
>         }
>
>         [....  processing code omitted ... ]
>
>         //create the instance, but don't start it yet
>         ProcessInstance processInstance
> = kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().createProcessInstance("com.mycompany.Process",
> parameters);
>
>         //insert the instance in the WM: this will create the activation
> of the other rule
>         insert(processInstance);
>
>         //now, start the process
>
>   kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().startProcessInstance(processInstance.getProcessInstance());
>
> end
>
> Best Regards,
>
> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
>
> Esteban Aliverti
> - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com
> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com
>
>
> 2012/2/8 Alberto R. Galdo <argaldo at gmail.com>
>
> I'm afraid I can't publish as it is, but I hope this would give you a hint:
>>
>> myrules.drl:
>>
>> rule "New case"
>>     when
>>         $case : Case(processed==false) from entry-point "case stream"
>>
>>     then
>>         modify ($case){
>>             setProcessed(true)
>>         }
>>
>>         [....  processing code omitted ... ]
>>
>>         insert(kcontext.
>> getKnowledgeRuntime().startProcess("com.mycompany.Process", parameters));
>> end
>>
>> rule "job complete"
>> ruleflow-group "jobs group"
>>     when
>>         $processInstance: WorkflowProcessInstance()
>>     then
>>         Job job = (Job)$processInstance.getVariable("var");
>>         update(job);
>> end
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> process.bpmn:
>>
>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
>> <definitions ....>
>> <process processType="Private" isExecutable="true"
>> id="com.mycompany.Process" name="process" >
>> [one start node and lots of nodes here, one that ends in the next ]
>>
>> <businessRuleTask g:ruleFlowGroup="jobs group" id="job complete"
>> name="complete job"/>
>>
>> [ lots of nodes after, ending in an end node]
>>
>> </process>
>> </definitions>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> As you can see the rule "New case" is not in any group and is responsible
>> ( if it is the case ) of launching the process, and then that process
>> invokes the bussinessrule group "jobs group". As stated, what we see is
>> that the rule "job complete" never gets fired.
>>
>>
>>
>> Alberto R. Galdo
>> argaldo at gmail.com
>>
>>
>> Alberto R. Galdo
>> argaldo at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 21:16, Mauricio Salatino <salaboy at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> ""businessRuleTask" who tries to fire a rule in drools ant that rule
>>> are not in the same group" can you share the process definition and
>>> the rule?
>>>
>>> 2012/2/7 Alberto R. Galdo <argaldo at gmail.com>:
>>> > Hi,
>>> >
>>> >    The rule that inserts the process which has the node
>>> "businessRuleTask"
>>> > who tries to fire a rule in drools ant that rule are not in the same
>>> group.
>>> > In fact, the rule that should be fired is the only rule in that group
>>> and
>>> > should only be fired by the process itself.
>>> >
>>> >    What we are trying to do is to update the state of a fact inside
>>> drools
>>> > with information gathered in the BPM process. Maybe I am getting this
>>> wrong,
>>> > but, Is there another way to accomplish this?
>>> >
>>> > Greets,
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Alberto R. Galdo
>>> > argaldo at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 19:23, Mauricio Salatino <salaboy at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi are you using the same rule flow-group in the businessRuleTask and
>>> >> in your rule? can you share the rule that you are using?
>>> >> remember that the evaluation will be done by the engine as soon as the
>>> >> information comes in. The rule flow group will only execute something
>>> >> if a rule was activated inside the rule flow group of your
>>> >> businessRuleTask.
>>> >> Cheers
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:23 PM, argaldo <argaldo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> >  We're running an application that uses Drools + JBPM 5 + Drools
>>> >> > integration our set-up can be seen as:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >  Some rule fires and creates a JBPM process ( a fact gets inserted
>>> into
>>> >> > drools using "kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().startProcess()" ),
>>> after a
>>> >> > few
>>> >> > nodes processed, the JBPM engine arrives to a node of type
>>> >> > "businessRuleTask" which in turn tells drools to evaluate a group of
>>> >> > rules (
>>> >> > which at the moment consists on only one rule ).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >  Well, the problem is that what we see is that everything runs ok
>>> before
>>> >> > the businessRuleTask and at the moment when the rule group would be
>>> >> > evaluated we could see that in drools the rule gets created,
>>> activated,
>>> >> > but
>>> >> > never fired.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >  We did some debug and realized that the reason the rule group
>>> never got
>>> >> > fired is because this check in RuleFlowGroupImpl.java ( method
>>> >> > setActive(boolean) ):
>>> >> >
>>> >> >            if ( this.list.isEmpty() ) {
>>> >> >                if ( this.autoDeactivate ) {
>>> >> >                    // if the list of activations is empty and
>>> >> >                    // auto-deactivate is on, deactivate this group
>>> >> >                    WorkingMemoryAction action = new
>>> DeactivateCallback(
>>> >> > this );
>>> >> >                    this.workingMemory.queueWorkingMemoryAction(
>>> action
>>> >> > );
>>> >> >                }
>>> >> >            }
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >   The problem is that at the moment when drools calls setActive()
>>> and
>>> >> > performs the check, this.list is in fact empty and autoDeactivate is
>>> >> > true by
>>> >> > default ). Then drools enqueues a deactivation task afterwords,
>>> which
>>> >> > deactivates the rule *before* even firing it.
>>> >> >
>>> >> >    From now on, things get a little weirder, every subsequent
>>> invocation
>>> >> > of
>>> >> > the method setActive ( in response of bussinessRuleTask from our
>>> >> > bussiness
>>> >> > process ) runs ok as that list now is not empty ( has one rule ).
>>> >> >
>>> >> >    Seems a race condition to me, but,...,  Is there any way to
>>> >> > deactivate
>>> >> > autodeactivation by default? Are we doing something wrong? Bug
>>> report?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Greets,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > View this message in context:
>>> >> >
>>> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-does-not-fire-when-JBPM-asks-to-do-so-in-BPMN-2-0-process-tp3723183p3723183.html
>>> >> > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > rules-users mailing list
>>> >> > rules-users at lists.jboss.org
>>> >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >>  - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com
>>> >>  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>>> >>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
>>> >>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>> >>
>>> >>  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> 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
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  - CTO @ http://www.plugtree.com
>>>  - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com
>>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org
>>>  - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar
>>>
>>>  - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120209/7dacd34a/attachment.html

More information about the rules-users mailing list