But wait a second.. If you comment out another and inside the rule it will also work.. that means that it's not the pattern inside the last AND
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Mario Fusco <[email protected]> wrote: > Mauricio, > > I am seeing exactly what you wrote. > What I have found until now is that the harming pattern is inside the last > and block (the one starting at line 218 of the single big rule and ending > at 235), indeed if you comment away that block the test succeeds. > > I'll keep you updated on my further findings. > > Mario > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Mauricio Salatino <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Mario, I was looking at that problem too. >> Notice that if you remove some of the ANDs, the rule will work without >> throwing the null pointer exception. >> Which makes me think that it could be related with the number of >> declarations or how the patterns are being arranged for that specific case. >> The null pointer is raised when a hashcode is being calculated for a >> declaration that doesn't have an object assigned, for some reason it's not >> there. >> One of the tests shows how we have splitted the rule in multiple rules >> showing that each individual group of patterns is correct.. which make me >> think again about the number of patterns and/or declarations can be causing >> the issue. >> >> Cheers >> >> Keep us posted about your findings.. we can probably learn how to solve >> these problems and stop bothering you :) >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 8:39 AM, Mario Fusco <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> I am going to give a look at it. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 9:11 AM, Esteban Aliverti < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Guys, >>>> I'm having a NPE in one of the rules I'm using and I can't find the >>>> cause. >>>> I'm attaching a test project that shows the problem. >>>> Basically, I have 1 rule that contains some nested 'ands' and 'ors' >>>> patterns. The rule is being auto-generated from some data, that is why it >>>> has this strange structure. >>>> We tried to refactor the rule by separating it in different >>>> rules, extract some common factors, etc. and in some cases it works. >>>> So I'm not sure whether the original rule is wrong or if I'm hitting a >>>> bug in Drools. >>>> Inside the test project you can find the original rule >>>> (SimpleHighRiskSepsis.drl) and all the other refactors we did. >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> >>>> XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX >>>> >>>> Esteban Aliverti >>>> - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com >>>> - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> rules-dev mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-dev mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com >> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org >> - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar >> >> - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio - >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > rules-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev > > -- - MyJourney @ http://salaboy.wordpress.com - Co-Founder @ http://www.jugargentina.org - Co-Founder @ http://www.jbug.com.ar - Salatino "Salaboy" Mauricio -
_______________________________________________ rules-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-dev
