The basic behaviour of the engine is to re-evaluate all rules where a new, updated or deleted fact is referenced via its (sub)class or some interface name. If the LHS is true, the rule is fired.
To insert a complex fact requiring setter calls, make sure to do the insert() after all the settings. There are some variations due to rule attributes, see the docs. -W On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 1:37 PM, Javier Vera Gomez <javier.v...@andorratelecom.ad> wrote: > Man... you made my day! > > Such a Dumb! Thats true, first is inserted the Task and after that the Param > is added. Im wondering if I update the fact, all the rules fired before > updating it would fire again? Or just the rules which conditions are changed? > > I guess: > > R1 > When > T > T.X > Then > ... > > R2 > When > T > T.Y > Then > ... > > R3 > When > T > Then > ... > > If T is asserted but not T.X neither T.Y, R3 is fired. If after this, T.X is > asserted (I mean updating T), I guess R3 will not be fired again... and if T > is updated again but retracting T.X, then R1 should perform rollback of the > RHS clausure... is this the actual behavior? > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org > [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] En nombre de Wolfgang Laun > Enviado el: dimarts, 10 / novembre / 2009 12:41 > Para: Rules Users List > Asunto: Re: [rules-users] Inconsistent behavior between LHS and RHS ... > > There are a couple of scenarios that might produce this effect: > > One is: > // session is running ! > Task t = new Task(); > session.insert ( t ); > t.getTechnicalParams().add(...) > > Can you exclude this or a similar scenario, where Parameters are added > to an existing Task() fact, without update() of the fact? > > -W > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Javier Vera Gomez > <javier.v...@andorratelecom.ad> wrote: >> Thanks for answering, >> >> Further detail: >> The actual output is the rule is fired (ie, the param is not found) and then >> the param is printed out. So, in fact, the param does exists. >> >> The Task is created as usual, nothing special here (insert (new Task...) >> >> Code fragment from Task.java: >> >> public String getParameter(String name){ >> for (Parameter param : getTechnicalParams()) { >> if( name.equals(param.getName()) ) { >> return param.getValue(); >> } >> } >> return null; >> } >> >> @XmlElement(name="parameter",nillable = true) >> �...@xmlelementwrapper(name="technicalParams") >> protected List<Parameter> technicalParams; >> >> public List<Parameter> getTechnicalParams() { >> if (technicalParams == null) { >> technicalParams = new ArrayList<Parameter>(); >> } >> return this.technicalParams; >> } >> >> >> It is important to note that in other flows of similar rules this is working >> perfect... I know I have not giving so much input but I do not know what >> else could provide. >> >> Any clues ? >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org >> [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] En nombre de Wolfgang Laun >> Enviado el: dilluns, 9 / novembre / 2009 13:56 >> Para: Rules Users List >> Asunto: Re: [rules-users] Inconsistent behavior between LHS and RHS ... >> >> It's difficult to assess this case without the code from Task.java, >> especially mehtods getParameter(), getTechnicalParams(); the code used >> to create the Task fact, and the actual output. >> -W >> >> 2009/11/9 Javier Vera Gomez <javier.v...@andorratelecom.ad>: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been using drools 4.07 for a while. I have found a weird case. It seems >>> that when evaluating the LHS some fact is true but the RHS probes it wasn't >>> actually true. >>> >>> The example code is at the end. It is very weird to me I have no clue about >>> how to solve this or what could be happening! >>> >>> rule "A-Rule" >>> no-loop true >>> ruleflow-group "validate-task" >>> salience -9999999 >>> when >>> >$task : Task( type == "Creacio_Profile_Radius" ) >>> >eval($task.getParameter("PRIMARYDNS")==null) >>> then >>> >System.out.println(">>>DBGPar0: >>> "+$task.getTechnicalParams().get(0).getName()); >>> >System.out.println(">>>DBGPar1: >>> "+$task.getTechnicalParams().get(1).getName()); >>> >System.out.println("Getparam PRIMARYDNS: >>> "+$task.getParameter("PRIMARYDNS")); >>> end >>> >>> >>> further explanation: >>> >>> The Task class has a List<Parameter> technicalParams, originally the eval >>> part was: >>> not(Parameter (name=="PRIMARYDNS") from $task.technicalParams()) >>> >>> it didn't work and I coded this "getParameter" method just to make some >>> tests. So, it seems the collection appears "empty" to the LHS but in fact it >>> isnt! >>> >>> any clue? >>> >>> thanks a lot, >>> >>> Javier >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> rules-users mailing list >>> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> rules-users mailing list >> rules-users@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users >> > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > > > _______________________________________________ > rules-users mailing list > rules-users@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users > _______________________________________________ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
