This is certainly a bug, as it is definitely not what one expects from the description of property reactive.
Existing activations that do not mention the modified property should not be affected. I have created a similar test case, and it fails the same way. It seems that "property reactive" is broken in 5.5.0 and should not be used. -W On 14/12/2012, m11 <mchan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I have come across a problem of unexpected cancels on activations when > using > property reactive facts. The problem occurs if two or more rules have the > same criteria. I have uploaded all the files and a unit test to show this > using a very simple bare bones example: > > pom.xml <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4021204/pom.xml> > log4j.properties > <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4021204/log4j.properties> > modify-test.drl > <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4021204/modify-test.drl> > SampleBean.java > <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4021204/SampleBean.java> > RuleRunner.java > <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4021204/RuleRunner.java> > RulesLogger.java > <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4021204/RulesLogger.java> > ModifyTest.java > <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/file/n4021204/ModifyTest.java> > > Running ModifyTest.java produces the following logs: > > 0 [main] DEBUG com.demo.rules.session.RulesLogger - Activation created > calculate y > 1 [main] DEBUG com.demo.rules.session.RulesLogger - Activation created > calculate x > 2 [main] DEBUG com.demo.rules.session.RulesLogger - Before Activation > fired calculate x > 4 [main] DEBUG com.demo.rules.session.RulesLogger - Activation > cancelled calculate y > 6 [main] DEBUG com.demo.rules.session.RulesLogger - After Activation > fired [Activation rule=calculate x, act#=1, salience=0, tuple=[fact > 0:2:42753698:30752:3:DEFAULT:SampleBean [x=10, y=null, id=1]] > ] > > The activations have been created as expected but an activation on a rule > is > cancelled unexpectedily as indicated by log statement 4. Why is this? > > If all the rules have a different criteria then all works fine. If i dont > use property reactive facts then it works. It looks like this is a bug, can > someone confirm this ? > > We have some edge case scenarios in our rules where it is possible for some > rules to end up with the same criteria. We dont want to force the business > analysts to have to merge the rules as we have a very large number of > rules, > and it will be very hard for them to track the criteria for each rule. > > If it is not a bug can someone please provide the rational reason why it is > sensible to have the activation cancelled. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/same-criteria-across-multiple-rules-cancels-activation-with-Property-Reactive-Facts-tp4021204.html > Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > _______________________________________________ > 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
