[rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final

[jian zhi]

Mike,


Thanks for the detail explanation.


I found that the order of the conditions were changed again after I added two more conditions to the same package I used last time.
I added default value to the first two conditions. Added the fifth condition by using the binding name created for the first condition.Add the sixth condition by using the binding name created for the second condition. After I import the data to 5.3 the fifth condition became the second and the sixth
condition became the fourth. Also the default value for the first and second conditions are not listed in the rule source in 5.3. Could you please take a look? I attach the modified repository in the email.

Thanks a lot,
Jian


________________________________
 From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>
To: drools-user <rules-users at lists.jboss.org> 
Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 12:59 PM
Subject: [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
 

I suspect ConsumerAccountAssociationFact.hasAnyAccountClosed is a boolean. 


In 5.3 we handle data-types better than 5.0, so String, Numbers, Dates are Booleans have editors appropriate for the data-type and the resulting DRL only escapes values with quotation marks where needed (i.e. Strings and Dates). Boolean's in the table are now shown as Checkboxes. If the value is "true" it is ticked, if the value is "false" the checkbox is not ticked.

I don't therefore believe there is any problem.



On 10 February 2012 16:35, jian zhi <jianpzhi at yahoo.com> wrote:

Mike,
>
>
>
>Thanks for the quick response. I downloaded the war and tested the fix. The order of the conditions are correct now. There is still a small problem in the last condition.
>
>
>In Drools 5.0 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ).
>In Drools 5.3 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact( hasAnyAccountClosed == false ). It displays a square check box in the cell.
>
>
>Could you please take a look?
>Thanks,
>Jian
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>
>To: jian zhi <jianpzhi at yahoo.com>; Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org> 
>Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:55 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
> 
>
>
>You can get a build containing the fix from Nexus:
>
>https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/index.html#nexus-search;gav~org.drools~guvnor-webapp~5.3.2-SNAPSHOT~~
>
>
>2012/2/8 jian zhi <jianpzhi at yahoo.com>
>
>Mike,
>>
>>
>>Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3?
>>
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Jian
>>
>>
>>
>>________________________________
>> From: Michael Anstis <michael.anstis at gmail.com>
>>To: Rules Users List <rules-users at lists.jboss.org> 
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:17 AM
>>
>>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
>> 
>>
>>
>>The problem has existed since 5.2 and would potentially affect loading any earlier version.
>>Prior to 5.2 the object model used by the guided decision table did not hold a Pattern to which individual condition columns are bound. 
>>The conversion code groups individual condition columns into the appropriate group and moves the underlying column data accordingly (as there was no guarantee columns with the same bound name were consecutive).
>>There was a problem with the creation and insertion of the new Pattern objects that relied upon the order of entries in a HashMap being consistent. This has now changed.
>>I know others have been using the new guided decision table with old repositories without problem and our unit tests did not detect the problem either.
>>AFAIK this is the first report of any such issue since the release of 5.2's betas, however I would be wrong to say there is no risk.
>>sent on the move
>>On 8 Feb 2012 01:22, "vadlam" <sreeram.vadlamudi at wellsfargo.com> wrote:
>>
>>does this issue happen for any previous version of Guvnor data such as 5.0
>>>or 5.1 or 5.2 exported and imported into a Guvnor 5.3 repository ?
>>>
>>>does this mean, we cannot rely on 5.3.0 version of Guvnor code when
>>>migrating data from a previous version and should rather apply the fix  ?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Migrating-repository-data-from-Drools-5-0-to-5-3Final-tp3715772p3724570.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
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>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/20120213/a2083968/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: repository_export.zip
Type: application/zip
Size: 6222 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20120213/a2083968/attachment.zip