[rules-users] [Drools Planner] Hard constraint appears to be ignored
Reinis
drools at orbit-x.de
Mon Feb 27 17:43:37 EST 2012
Hello,
I did all the suggestions from Geoffrey (thanks sir) and now the TRACE is failing with an additional rule:
java.lang.IllegalStateException: The presumedScore (0hard/0soft) is corrupted because it is not the realScore (0hard/-1soft).
Presumed workingMemory:
Score rule (penalize late assignments) has count (11) and weight total (8).
Score rule (reward Resource consolidation) has count (7) and weight total (7).
Real workingMemory:
Score rule (penalize late assignments) has count (11) and weight total (*7*).
Score rule (reward Resource consolidation) has count (*8*) and weight total (*8*).
The offending rules look like this:
rule "penalize late Assignments"
when
$project : Project(kickOff != null, $kickOff : kickOff)
$assignment : Assignment(project == $project)
eval($assignment.getInterval().getStart().isAfter($kickOff))
then
insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("penalize late assignments", ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_SOFT,
new Duration($kickOff, $assignment.getInterval().getStart()).toStandardDays().getDays(), $assignment, $project));
end
rule "reward Resource consolidation"
when
$leftAssignment : Assignment($project : project, $leftResource : resource != null, $leftId : id, $leftIntervalStartMillis : intervalStartMillis)
$rightAssignment : Assignment(project == $project, resource == $leftResource, id != $leftId, intervalStartMillis<= $leftIntervalStartMillis)
eval(new Duration($leftAssignment.getIntervalStartMillis() - $rightAssignment.getIntervalStartMillis()).getStandardDays() == 0)
then
insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("reward Resource consolidation", ConstraintType.POSITIVE
, 1, $leftAssignment, $rightAssignment));
end
*
If I comment the "reward Resource consolidation" rule out, the test case completes successfully.
*
Is there anything else I can try?
br
Reinis
On 02/27/2012 09:46 AM, Geoffrey De Smet wrote:
>
> Op 26-02-12 19:47, Reinis schreef:
>> Hello,
>>
>>> 1) TRACE
>> It did actually crash!
> Good :)
>> java.lang.IllegalStateException: The presumedScore (0hard/-860soft) is corrupted because it is not the realScore (0hard/-858soft).
> It's not crashing on the hard constraint difference, but that probably
> means it doesn't get there yet.
>> Presumed workingMemory:
>> Score rule (reward Resource consolidation) has count (44) and weight total (44).
>> Real workingMemory:
>> Score rule (reward Resource consolidation) has count (46) and weight total (46).
>>
>> But the rule causing it looks "normal" to me:
>> rule "reward Resource consolidation"
>> when
>> $leftAssignment : Assignment($project : project, $leftResource : resource != null, $leftId : id)
>> $rightAssignment : Assignment(project == $project, resource == $leftResource, id != $leftId)
>> eval(new Duration(Math.abs($leftAssignment.getInterval().getStartMillis() - $rightAssignment.getInterval().getStartMillis())).getStandardDays() == 0)
> Looks good to me.
>
> What you could do is make a Assignment.getIntervalStartMillis() and
> Assignment( ..., $leftStartMillis : intervalStartMillis)
> and add that rightAssignment's startMillis should be> then
> leftAssignment's $leftStartMillis to avoid the Math.abs and double
> counting of this constraint.
>> then
>> insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("reward Resource consolidation", ConstraintType.POSITIVE
>> , 1, $leftAssignment, $rightAssignment));
>> end
>>
>>> 2) drools version and planner version
>> drools-core-5.3.1.Final
> Can you try TRACE with drools-core, drools-compiler and knowledge-api
> 5.4.0.Beta2?
> There was a working memory corruption bug fixed in drools 5.4 over 5.3,
> not sure if it made 5.3.1.
>> drools-planner-core-5.3.1.Final
> (No need to upgrade planner itself at this time - as that will force you
> down the UpgradeRecipe.txt).
>> Thank you for the hints! Is the "eval" causing all this trouble?
>>
>> br
>> Reinis
>>
>>
>> On 02/26/2012 06:45 PM, Geoffrey De Smet wrote:
>>
>>> 1) If you haven't already, can you turn on<environmentMode>TRACE</...>
>>> and let it run a while (it will be much slower)?
>>> Report here if that crashes or not.
>>>
>>> 2) What drools version and what planner version are you using?
>>>
>>> Op 26-02-12 17:51, Reinis schreef:
>>>> Hello, it appears that hard constraint I have defined is being ignored
>>>> in some rare cases. Here's an example:
>>>>
>>>> This is what my application logs after getting best solution after
>>>> solver has returned from solve():
>>>>
>>>> 2012-02-23 21:28:54,595 [main] INFO Project Project1 assignment
>>>> 563:[2012-02-27T13:00:00.000/2012-02-27T17:00:00.000] was assigned to John
>>>>
>>>> 2012-02-23 21:28:54,597 [main] INFO Project Project2 assignment
>>>> 508:[2012-02-27T13:00:00.000/2012-02-27T17:00:00.000] was assigned to John
>>>>
>>>> (The log says that John was assigned twice in same time period to two
>>>> different assignments (assignment 563 and assignment 508)
>>>>
>>>> Here short explanation of the relevant domain data
>>>> assignment.id = 563
>>>> assignment.interval = 2012-02-27T13:00:00.000/2012-02-27T17:00:00.000
>>>> assignment.project = Project1
>>>> assignment.resource = John
>>>>
>>>> And this is rule that, to my opinion should've prohibited that two
>>>> assignments get assigned to the same resource:
>>>>
>>>> rule "only one assignment within interval for the same resource"
>>>> when
>>>> $leftAssignment : Assignment($leftId : id, $interval :
>>>> interval, resource != null, $resource : resource)
>>>> $rightAssignment : Assignment(interval == $interval, resource
>>>> == $resource, id != $leftId)
>>>> then
>>>> insertLogical(new IntConstraintOccurrence("only one assignment
>>>> within interval for the same resource", ConstraintType.NEGATIVE_HARD, 1,
>>>> $leftAssignment, $rightAssignment));
>>>> end
>>>>
>>>> The score looks like this:
>>>>
>>>> 2012-02-23 21:28:54,594 [main] DEBUG The hard score is: 0 and the soft
>>>> score is: -532
>>>>
>>>> So no hard constraints are broken according to planner.
>>>>
>>>> My question is not what is wrong with this particular example (unless it
>>>> is obvious for you), but if you can think of any anti-pattern that would
>>>> cause this behavior?
>>>>
>>>> What I already checked is:
>>>> - this happens really sporadically (most of the time the result is
>>>> CORRECT but in 1 from 5 runs I get this kind of error);
>>>> - I checked, re-checked and re-re-checked all the hashCode, compareTo,
>>>> solutionHashCode, solutionCompare, clone, ... methods - they appear to
>>>> be correct;
>>>> - moves are simple and I tried to keep them consistent with the way
>>>> moves in drools-planner examples are constructed;
>>>>
>>>> Would be great if you could give me a hint to what direction I should
>>>> look next.
>>>>
>>>> br
>>>> Reinis
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
More information about the rules-users
mailing list