[rules-users] SimpleScoreCalculator

[André Fróes]

I managed solving that problem even when there's more than one skill
involved, but now my hard constraint of worktime breaks if I add more
worktime than the sum of engineers worktime.

(8) is the worktime, my workorders all have a worktime of 4 hours, so, I
got 32 available hours and 32 hours of workorders to be assigned right?
When I stick to this plan, it works:

----Compilation Result----
Solved distribution with 8 work orders and 4 engineers:
  ID: 104[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]  -  Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]
  ID: 103[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]  -  Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]
  ID: 105[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]  -  Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]
  ID: 102[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]  -  Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]
  ID: 101[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]  -  Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]
  ID: 107[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]  -  Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]
  ID: 106[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]  -  Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]
  ID: 108[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]  -  Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]
---------------

So, if I add another worktime with 4 hours, it messes everything, this is
the outcome:

Solved distribution with 9 work orders and 4 engineers:
  ID: 104[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]  -  Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]
  ID: 103[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]  -  Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]
  ID: 105[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]  -  Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]
  ID: 102[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]  -  Qwert(8)[Skills: (1002) ABC 2]
  ID: 101[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]  -  Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]
  ID: 107[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]  -  Lkjhg(8)[Skills: (1004) ABC 4]
  ID: 106[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]  -  Poiuy(8)[Skills: (1001) ABC 1]
  ID: 108[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]  -  Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]
  ID: 109[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]  -  Trewq(8)[Skills: (1003) ABC 3]

------------

to be precise, i don't know if it is because of worktime or skill


2013/2/19 André Fróes <arfmoraes at gmail.com>

> Just one correction, it is sorting correctly when there's one workorder
> with a skill, if there's another workorder with same skill, it doesn't sort
> that workorder to that skill.
>
> This is what is happening:
>
> Workorder skill ABC1   ------------   Engineer skill ABC1
> Workorder skill ABC2   ------------   Engineer skill ABC2
> Workorder skill ABC1   ------------   Engineer skill ABC2
>
> but if there's only one workorder with one skill it works:
>
> Workorder skill ABC1   ------------   Engineer skill ABC1
> Workorder skill ABC2   ------------   Engineer skill ABC2
> Workorder skill ABC3   ------------   Engineer skill ABC3
>
> so, from the second workorder on, with a repeated required skill, it
> doesn't sort properly
>
>
> 2013/2/19 André Fróes <arfmoraes at gmail.com>
>
>> Hello, since i'm not moving a step from where I am at dsl rule, I'm
>> trying to do it with SimpleScoreCalculator, but the same is happening.
>>
>> ------------
>> public HardAndSoftScore calculateScore(Distributor distributor) {
>>  int hardScore = 0;
>> int softScore = 0;
>>  for (Engineer e : distributor.getEngineerList()){
>>  long skill = e.getSkillEngineerList().get(0).getSkill().getId();
>> int requiredWorktime = 0;
>> long requiredSkill = 0l;
>>   for (WorkOrder o : distributor.getWorkOrderList()){
>>  if (e.equals(o.getEngineer())){
>> requiredWorktime += o.getRequiredWorktime();
>> requiredSkill = o.getRequiredSkills().get(0).getSkill().getId();
>>  }
>> }
>>   int engineerAvailableTime = e.getWorktime() - requiredWorktime;
>> if (engineerAvailableTime < 0 ){
>>  hardScore += engineerAvailableTime;
>> }
>>  if (requiredSkill == skill){
>>  softScore += requiredSkill;
>> }
>> }
>> return DefaultHardAndSoftScore.valueOf(hardScore, softScore);
>>  }
>> ------------
>>
>> wouldn't that have to fit since i'm comparing the 1st attribute of each
>> skill list from engineers and workorders? And how can I weight which
>> engineer would be better to a determined workorder if the workorder have
>> more skills and so does the engineer?
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/rules-users/attachments/20130219/7f42c707/attachment.html