[rules-users] "in" syntax breaking the Rete Tree

[droolster]

@laune,

I don't want to make this thread longer than it already is but...

1. If you don't trust the Drools Rete Viewer, why is it there in the plugin
and why are Rete graphs displayed in the documentation? If it is not
trustworthy, then it's misleading. (I'm assuming you are on the Drools dev.
team).

2. I said in my post "one of the assurances...". We do have JUnit tests in
place. But it was source of confusion that the Rete viewer was complaining
that the graph was broken (in the properties tab, there was null for one of
nodes)  but the rule's were evaluating fine. It's not exactly a glowing
advert for Drools Expert is it?





--
View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/in-operator-breaking-the-Rete-Tree-tp4028148p4028235.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.