Hello,
When I configure JESS 70p1 with a single rule, and feed it two sets of facts
that each (correctly) trigger the rule, the RHS of the rule is behaving
inexplicably differently. The RHS plainly calls for the assertion
of a fact, which occurs in one case and not the other.
Here is the entire rule:
(defrule BomType_ltr
?Assembly_1 <- (IPC2511B::Assembly
(assemblyRef ?assemblyRef_2)
(bom nil)
)
?Product_4 <- (IPC2511B::Product
(id ?assemblyRef_2_x)
(name ?name_5)
(revision ?revision_6)
)
(test (eq ?assemblyRef_2_x (AssemblyRefType_to_ShortName ?
assemblyRef_2)))
=>
(bind ?F_13 (names__ltr ?name_5 ?assemblyRef_2_x))
(bind ?bom_name_12 (nth$ 1 ?F_13))
(bind ?assembly_name_8 (nth$ 2 ?F_13))
(bind ?step_name_9 (nth$ 3 ?F_13))
(bind ?C_11 (assert (MAIN::__collection (__data Rubbish)))) ; <==
Unreliable
(bind ?BomHeaderType_7 (assert (IPC2581am1::BomHeaderType
(assembly ?assembly_name_8)
(revision ?revision_6)
(stepRef ?step_name_9)
)))
(bind ?BomType_10 (assert (IPC2581am1::BomType
(bomHeader ?BomHeaderType_7)
(bomItem ?C_11)
(name ?bom_name_12)
)))
(modify ?Assembly_1
(bom ?BomType_10)
)
)
Here is a fragment from the transcript when watchAll is activated:
FIRE 1 MAIN::BomType_ltr f-26, f-32,
==> f-118 (MAIN::__collection (__id nil) (__data Rubbish))
==> f-119 (IPC2581am1::BomHeaderType (__id nil) (affecting nil) (assembly
"product29") (revision "revision11") (stepRef "product29"))
==> f-120 (IPC2581am1::BomType (__id nil) (bomHeader <Fact-119>) (bomItem
<Fact-118>) (name "product29"))
<=> f-26 (IPC2511B::Assembly (__id 272) (bom <Fact-120>) (assemblyRef
"product29") (boardOrPanelRef "board7:x") (componentPlacementRefs <Fact-27>)
(designRules nil) (drawingRefs nil) (powerSupplyRefs nil) (testConnectRefs nil))
FIRE 2 MAIN::BomType_ltr f-23, f-30,
==> f-121 (IPC2581am1::BomHeaderType (__id nil) (affecting nil) (assembly
"product32") (revision "revision9") (stepRef "product32"))
==> f-122 (IPC2581am1::BomType (__id nil) (bomHeader <Fact-121>) (bomItem
FALSE) (name "product32"))
<=> f-23 (IPC2511B::Assembly (__id 258) (bom <Fact-122>) (assemblyRef
"product32") (boardOrPanelRef "board3:z") (componentPlacementRefs <Fact-24>)
(designRules nil) (drawingRefs nil) (powerSupplyRefs nil) (testConnectRefs nil))
It will be seen that FIRE 1:
* Asserts a new __collection as f-118 (this is expected)
* Asserts f-120 with a slot named bomItem containing f-118 (expected)
On the other hand FIRE 2:
* Does not assert a new __collection fact (unexpected)
* Asserts f-122 with a slot named bomItem containing FALSE (assertion expected,
FALSE not expected)
I hope someone can explain this.
Thanks,
Art
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send the words 'unsubscribe jess-users [EMAIL PROTECTED]'
in the BODY of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED], NOT to the list
(use your own address!) List problems? Notify [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
