Re: [rules-users] Anyway to get Failed Reason for Failed Rule?
For a simplified scenario, it is easily possible to determine which rules fire and which don't. This scenario assumes that you have - a set of rules - some static facts (which may be modified in the process or not) - one transactional fact and the simple sequence kSession.insert( transFact ); kSession.fireAllRules(); repeated for each fact. Set up an agenda event listener and register which rules fired - all the others did not. Analysing why some fact does not trigger a rule R is much more complex than rule R itself. Consider: rule R constrains n properties, and each of these values can be out of the hot range. Lets say we are investigating boxes with height, width, depth, colour, material, and weight. When your rule looks for h10, w20, d5, colour == RED, material == WOOD, weight 100 then you have 6 individual possibilities for this rule to fire. If you really need to have a detailed analysis you will have to redesign your rule base with individual rules checking individual properties, one rule each for width, height, depth, colour, material and weight. Each of these rules would add a property (WIDTH_OK, HEIGHT_OK,... WEIGHT_OK) to the investigated box. Then, at the end of the firings you look at the collected properties and can determine what is there and what isn't. If it is the full set, you have a matching box; otherwise the missing properties tell you what prohibited a full match. (Again, this assumes that you are investigating one transactional fact at a time.) Of course it will get even more complicated if you need to investigate combinations of facts, but I think it can be done, but it'll need some extensive work. -W On 09/08/2012, Rana ven12...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi Davide, your second guess is right. Sorry I should have said failed condition. I wanted to know which rule got fired and which one did not (because the condition failed in when clause). I wanted to know those, because we have requirement which asks for what are the rules which have passed and failed copnditions, so that we can make some decisions. Also, I wanted to know that in a rule rule name when //condition then //consequence end when the condition is failed will the rule goes to consequence or not. (I am fairely new to Drools. sorry). Thanks. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Anyway-to-get-Failed-Reason-for-Failed-Rule-tp4019070p4019077.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
Re: [rules-users] DRL to Decision Table
There is none with which I am aware of; however there might be something in the community. The concept has been loosely spoken about within the Drools team however nothing more concrete. Wait to see if there are replies from anybody else before drawing your conclusion. With kind regards, Mike On 10 August 2012 08:03, Mahadevappa, Shobha shobha.mahadeva...@nttdata.com wrote: Hi, Please let me know if there is any tool to convert .drl file to a decision table. Any pointers rgding this very much appreciated. Regards, Shobha M __ Disclaimer:This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying or forwarding ___ 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
Re: [rules-users] Decision table help
In DRL terms this is quite simple:- when $instance1 : ObjA( $mailID : mailId ) ObjA( this != $instance1, mailId != $mailId ) then ... This translates to a XLS decision table like this:- | CONDITION | CONDITION | CONDITION| +---+-+--+ | $i : ObjA | ObjA | +---+-+--+ | $mid : mailId | this != $param | mailId != $param | +---+-+--+ | 12345 | $i | $mid | There are no doubt other approaches. With kind regards, Mike On 9 August 2012 11:07, Mahadevappa, Shobha shobha.mahadeva...@nttdata.comwrote: Hi, I have scenario where I need to compare attributes of two different instances of an object in the decision table. ** ** The scenario is - say I have 5 instances of an object ObjA. ObjA has an attribute mail_id. I need to compare the maild_id attributes of the ObjA instances to figure out if they do not match (Ex: instance1.maild1 instance2 maild) Can you please let me know how this can be achieved using the decision table. ** ** ** ** Regards, *Shobha M *| Senior Program Manager,* *AAD | NTT DATA Global Delivery Services Limited| *w.* +91-80-26659482 (Ext 3679) |* v. *8814.3679 | *m.* +91.9972522743 | shobha.mahadeva...@nttdata.com ** ** __ Disclaimer:This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying or forwarding ___ 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
Re: [rules-users] How to define keywords that represent objects(in facts) to be able to use in rules
On 10/08/2012, san_drools pathasant...@yahoo.co.in wrote:
Hello Laune,
Yes, we can use parameters in DSL phrases. But the
problem here is rule author doesn't know which object to refer.
Consider this DSL definition:
[when][]ThereIsProgramHistoryData = ProgramHistory ()
[when][]- where {VarName} is {AttributeName} and is {operator} {value}=
{VarName}: {AttributeName} {operator} {value}
So you can write in DSLR
ThereIsProgramHistoryData
- where lpy is levelPriorYear and is greater than 0
Note that the author can choose the name (lpy) with which the field
(levelPriorYear) can be referred to in subsequent conditions. You
can
add more DSL phrases, or raw DRL (using '' as the first character):
ThereIsProgramHistoryData
- where lpy is levelPriorYear and is greater than 0
eval( lpy 1000 )
or you can even use DRL without the '' provided you add this *as the
last definition* to your DSL:
[condition][] {anything} = {anything}
ThereIsProgramHistoryData
- where lpy is levelPriorYear and is greater than 0
eval( lpy 1000 )
And, can we translate a business rule with keywords
into DRL?
This is what happens anyway. To see the result, add this as the first
line to your DSL definitions:
#/ result
You can use $ContactNum from the DRL translation. It's not hidden.
--
means, can we write in translated DRL for further actions?
I think that's clear, by now?
I think per my knowledge, we can write use keywords in business rule but
not directly in technical rule(DRL).
Distinguish DSLR and DRL. DSLR is where you write rules with phrases you
define in an DSL definition, and this is translated into DRL. DRL is
translated into the (internal) representation of rules for building
the Knowledge Base.
If you write DRL, there's no translation before the one from DRL to
internal, so you cannot use anything that's not in the DRL syntax.
And when i write businessrule using
keywords, the total rule can be using keywords only as the actual objects
will not be available to this rule. Am i right?
What you write doesn't make sense to me.
A keyword is translated into a chunk of text anywhere, a DSL
definition with when represents a conditional element or constraint
in the when part, and a DSL definition with then expands into a
statement in the then part.
Thus, a keyword can be used to represent any piece of text.
Make sure to read the documentation. Experiment, using #/ result and
see what you get.
-W
Could you lease make me to understad the things clearly in this context.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/How-to-define-keywords-that-represent-objects-in-facts-to-be-able-to-use-in-rules-tp4019065p4019081.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
Re: [rules-users] Decision table help
Thanks Mike. Will give it a try Regards, Shobha M From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Anstis Sent: 10 August 2012 PM 02:16 To: Rules Users List Subject: Re: [rules-users] Decision table help In DRL terms this is quite simple:- when $instance1 : ObjA( $mailID : mailId ) ObjA( this != $instance1, mailId != $mailId ) then ... This translates to a XLS decision table like this:- | CONDITION | CONDITION | CONDITION| +---+-+--+ | $i : ObjA | ObjA | +---+-+--+ | $mid : mailId | this != $param | mailId != $param | +---+-+--+ | 12345 | $i | $mid | There are no doubt other approaches. With kind regards, Mike On 9 August 2012 11:07, Mahadevappa, Shobha shobha.mahadeva...@nttdata.commailto:shobha.mahadeva...@nttdata.com wrote: Hi, I have scenario where I need to compare attributes of two different instances of an object in the decision table. The scenario is - say I have 5 instances of an object ObjA. ObjA has an attribute mail_id. I need to compare the maild_id attributes of the ObjA instances to figure out if they do not match (Ex: instance1.maild1 instance2 maild) Can you please let me know how this can be achieved using the decision table. Regards, Shobha M | Senior Program Manager, AAD | NTT DATA Global Delivery Services Limited| w. +91-80-26659482tel:%2B91-80-26659482 (Ext 3679) | v. 8814.3679 | m. +91.9972522743tel:%2B91.9972522743 | shobha.mahadeva...@nttdata.commailto:shobha.mahadeva...@nttdata.com __ Disclaimer:This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying or forwarding ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.orgmailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users __ Disclaimer:This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged, confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient, please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying or forwarding___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Audit Logs: Business Case? Any pearls of wisdom?
I agree with Wolfgang on it is common sense to have audit logs for a real application, and of course the way to do it with listeners. Most of time, for my experience, these logs (which rule has triggered, what are the changes made (insert, retract, update...) ...) are simply dumped in the main application log file, and follow the same life cycle (deleted after some fixed time). Except for some really critical application that needs a strong justification of their results (like something doing quotations, or computing salaries), I don't see the utility of keeping all audit for all transactions in a production evironnement. But for debug phase (and also users training phase), it is really useful. In your mail, I see two distincts questions : - Should you add in your system some audit functionnalities to log what happend somewhere : I would say yes - Should you keep all this stuff somewhere, and how to store and how to format these information : I would say that raw logging is enough for debugging, but not if you have other requirements (like giving access to this to non IT rules author, use the audit result in a automated alert system, do report on rules usage, being able to answer to claims for a long period of time ...). - Mail original - De: Wolfgang Laun wolfgang.l...@gmail.com À: Rules Users List rules-users@lists.jboss.org Envoyé: Jeudi 9 Août 2012 20:31:29 Objet: Re: [rules-users] Audit Logs: Business Case? Any pearls of wisdom? If you need to keep track of changes in your WM database, a property change listener is one solution. In addition with an AgendaEventListener listening to rules being fired you should be able to document what was done and by which rule. I'd say it is common sense to have this in a business application that uses rule to modify data. There are simpler scenarios such as validating or analyzing data where it might not be necessary (after testing). -W On 9 August 2012 20:14, BenjaminWolfe benjamin.e.wo...@gmail.com wrote: Hello all, My company is just venturing into Drools, and I'd like to help make the endeavor as successful as possible. We'll be incorporating the rules engine into a broad range of use cases (depending on how successful the first few are, of course), with a wide range of business users, most of them using the Guvnor interface. It seems to me we'll want some sort of audit log in the form of a transaction-level table, simply to answer the question (in any given case, for any reason) of /what happened?/. On the other hand, a transaction-level table -- for a whole set of rules -- for a *lot* of facts (built up over time) -- could get pretty big. And our tech folks might not want to allocate resources to store and maintain the table. So I have a couple of questions for the more experienced Drools users: 1. How might you build a solid business case for such logging? Do you have any specific examples of the problems an audit log would solve, or the benefits it would create? 2. How common is it to keep audit logs? Do almost all of your projects include them, almost none, or somewhere in between? 3. Maybe I'm missing some nuance. Do you include audit logs of some rules fired, in some applications, but not others? Any other nuggets of wisdom? Thanks everyone, Benjamin -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Audit-Logs-Business-Case-Any-pearls-of-wisdom-tp4019073.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 ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Anyway to get Failed Reason for Failed Rule?
A simple solution is to pass in a string list and for each rule that is fired,
append the rule name to the list. Example
In your Java code declare:
class RuleLog {
List log = new ArrayList();
public void add(String logEntry) {
log.add(logEntry);
}
...
}
Then insert an instance of RuleLog as a fact to the rules engine. The log
entries generated can be retrieved after the rule session is completed.
In your rule:
rule foo
when
logger: RuleLog()
Then
// this will add the current rule name to the log when this rule is
fired
logger.add(drools.getRule().getName())
...
end
Jason
-Original Message-
From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org
[mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Rana
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:00 PM
To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Anyway to get Failed Reason for Failed Rule?
Hi Davide, your second guess is right. Sorry I should have said failed
condition.
I wanted to know which rule got fired and which one did not (because the
condition failed in when clause).
I wanted to know those, because we have requirement which asks for what are
the rules which have passed and failed copnditions, so that we can make some
decisions.
Also, I wanted to know that in a rule
rule name
when
//condition
then
//consequence
end
when the condition is failed will the rule goes to consequence or not. (I
am fairely new to Drools. sorry).
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Anyway-to-get-Failed-Reason-for-Failed-Rule-tp4019070p4019077.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
Re: [rules-users] Anyway to get Failed Reason for Failed Rule?
Hi there,
Just a minor remark.
If you prefer this way of working, do not add the log as a Fact. Add it as a
global. Otherwise, it would clutter the rete tree and slow down the
execution.
Unless you want to use the RuleLog to control the further execution, that
is.
Regards,
Frank
jasonxzhong wrote
A simple solution is to pass in a string list and for each rule that is
fired, append the rule name to the list. Example
In your Java code declare:
class RuleLog {
List log = new ArrayList();
public void add(String logEntry) {
log.add(logEntry);
}
...
}
Then insert an instance of RuleLog as a fact to the rules engine. The log
entries generated can be retrieved after the rule session is completed.
In your rule:
rule foo
when
logger: RuleLog()
Then
// this will add the current rule name to the log when this rule is
fired
logger.add(drools.getRule().getName())
...
end
Jason
-Original Message-
From: rules-users-bounces@.jboss [mailto:rules-users-bounces@.jboss] On
Behalf Of Rana
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 5:00 PM
To: rules-users@.jboss
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Anyway to get Failed Reason for Failed Rule?
Hi Davide, your second guess is right. Sorry I should have said failed
condition.
I wanted to know which rule got fired and which one did not (because the
condition failed in when clause).
I wanted to know those, because we have requirement which asks for what
are
the rules which have passed and failed copnditions, so that we can make
some
decisions.
Also, I wanted to know that in a rule
rule name
when
//condition
then
//consequence
end
when the condition is failed will the rule goes to consequence or not. (I
am fairely new to Drools. sorry).
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Anyway-to-get-Failed-Reason-for-Failed-Rule-tp4019070p4019077.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@.jboss
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@.jboss
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Anyway-to-get-Failed-Reason-for-Failed-Rule-tp4019070p4019088.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
Re: [rules-users] Eclipse, Groovy and Drools - java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError
Do you use Groovy class in your rules? I had similar though not exact class loading issue with Groovy when building rules on Guvnor. Groovy pulls in a lot of Java runtime classes for things like dynamic typing etc. and I suspect you may have to add the jars that contain the missing classes to the runtime class path. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Eclipse-Groovy-and-Drools-java-lang-NoClassDefFoundError-tp3355184p4019089.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
Re: [rules-users] Eclipse, Groovy and Drools - java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError
Hi Jason, Appreciate your help. I just got to the point I was missing. I didn't have the GEF installed in my Eclipse environment. Just installed and it worked. Thanks again. De: jasonxzhong jason.zh...@ellucian.com Para: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 10 de Agosto de 2012 10:26 Assunto: Re: [rules-users] Eclipse, Groovy and Drools - java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError Do you use Groovy class in your rules? I had similar though not exact class loading issue with Groovy when building rules on Guvnor. Groovy pulls in a lot of Java runtime classes for things like dynamic typing etc. and I suspect you may have to add the jars that contain the missing classes to the runtime class path. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Eclipse-Groovy-and-Drools-java-lang-NoClassDefFoundError-tp3355184p4019089.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
[rules-users] Best design pattern for: Set of events with countdown timers?
Hi, I am receiving events from a group of about 15 different event producers - each with different names (located in the message). I want to make sure that I get at least one event from each of those 15 producers within a pre-determined period of time; the period can be different for each producer. I am planning to use a template rule to relate producer name to time period. Then, I'll insert a myTimoutObject for each producer (not quite sure yet where/how I'll do that) which will count down from the provided time period and trigger an alert condition if they reach zero (and reset whenever a new event from that producer arrives into the ksession). Does anyone have experience with a better way to implement this count-down pattern? Thanks for any insight, -J -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-design-pattern-for-Set-of-events-with-countdown-timers-tp4019091.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
Re: [rules-users] Best design pattern for: Set of events with countdown timers?
did you check here : http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/please-provide-a-rule-for-events-timeout-cases-td3907955.html - Mail original - De: dunnlow dunn...@yahoo.com À: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Envoyé: Vendredi 10 Août 2012 16:19:33 Objet: [rules-users] Best design pattern for: Set of events with countdown timers? Hi, I am receiving events from a group of about 15 different event producers - each with different names (located in the message). I want to make sure that I get at least one event from each of those 15 producers within a pre-determined period of time; the period can be different for each producer. I am planning to use a template rule to relate producer name to time period. Then, I'll insert a myTimoutObject for each producer (not quite sure yet where/how I'll do that) which will count down from the provided time period and trigger an alert condition if they reach zero (and reset whenever a new event from that producer arrives into the ksession). Does anyone have experience with a better way to implement this count-down pattern? Thanks for any insight, -J -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Best-design-pattern-for-Set-of-events-with-countdown-timers-tp4019091.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
[rules-users] Web decision tables (Guvnor)
Hi folks,
Given a decision table a bit like this (hopefully the monospaced font lays it
out ok!):
Account Currency CanTrade
1 EUR Y
1 USD Y
1 IDR Y
1 Otherwise N
2 EUR Y
2 USD Y
2 Otherwise N
LHS conditions are generated a bit like this:
account == 1, currency == 'EUR'
account == 1, currency == 'USD'
account == 1, currency == 'IDR'
account == 1, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
account == 2, currency == 'EUR'
account == 2, currency == 'USD'
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
… which has the effect that for account 2, currency IDR, the rule does not
fire. For the business analysts building the rules, this does't make a lot of
sense, as they're expecting it to mean:
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD')
Unfortunately this means that if a currency is permitted for one account, then
a row must be added for every other account, indicating that the currency is
not permitted.
I'm trying to achieve a sensible default (fire the rule to reject the trade)
unless the currency is explicitly permitted.
Is there a decent mechanism for achieving this in a decision table?
One alternative I can think of is to create a technical rule which logically
inserts a rejection which exists as long as this rule hash't fired. But I would
really prefer to avoid doing anything like that, as I reckon it would be
something of a maintenance nightmare.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Steve
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Web decision tables (Guvnor)
Hi Stephen,
You've made my afternoon ;)
The operation of otherwise is rather dumb. It does not have any
understanding of what groups of rows it is meant to limit it's search of
values to construct the not in part.
As you have discovered, in your case, the Account column has no
significance at all (to the web-guided decision table) although it does to
the business analyst.
The immediate workaround would be to move each group to a different
decision table; i.e. Account=1 and Account=2. I appreciate your example is
probably a simplification of the real problem.
A better solution would be to furnish the otherwise value with the
information it would need to determine it's search range. e.g. define
otherwise with a key column of Account. This is however an enhancement
:(
Feel free to raise a JIRA (for GUVNOR)... no promises as to when I'll get a
chance to do anything about it though :(
More complex requirements exist, for example given:-
Account Qualifier Currency CanTrade
1 A EUR Y
1 A USD Y
1 B IDR Y
1 A Otherwise N
2 A EUR Y
2 B USD Y
2 B Otherwise N
Account=1, Qualifier=A, Otherwise = not in (EUR, USD)
Account=1, Qualifier=B, There is no otherwise
Account=2, Qualifier=A, There is no otherwise
Account=2, Qualifier=B, Otherwise = not in (USD) etc
So Otherwise will need a set of key\group columns.
With kind regards,
Mike
On 10 August 2012 15:50, Stephen Masters stephen.mast...@me.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Given a decision table a bit like this (hopefully the monospaced font lays
it out ok!):
Account Currency CanTrade
1 EUR Y
1 USD Y
1 IDR Y
1 Otherwise N
2 EUR Y
2 USD Y
2 Otherwise N
LHS conditions are generated a bit like this:
account == 1, currency == 'EUR'
account == 1, currency == 'USD'
account == 1, currency == 'IDR'
account == 1, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
account == 2, currency == 'EUR'
account == 2, currency == 'USD'
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
… which has the effect that for account 2, currency IDR, the rule does not
fire. For the business analysts building the rules, this does't make a lot
of sense, as they're expecting it to mean:
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD')
Unfortunately this means that if a currency is permitted for one account,
then a row must be added for every other account, indicating that the
currency is not permitted.
I'm trying to achieve a sensible default (fire the rule to reject the
trade) unless the currency is explicitly permitted.
Is there a decent mechanism for achieving this in a decision table?
One alternative I can think of is to create a technical rule which
logically inserts a rejection which exists as long as this rule hash't
fired. But I would really prefer to avoid doing anything like that, as I
reckon it would be something of a maintenance nightmare.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Steve
___
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
Re: [rules-users] Web decision tables (Guvnor)
Hi
I was wondering why you need the otherwise here.
May be it is only because you have simplified your sample, but the table you
sent is like a truth-table telling what currency can be converted for a
particular account.
So, as you have a 2 state answer, you can simply add rules to specify the
true answer, by modifying the answer flag that is set to false initially. In
other words, you cannot convert the currency unless a rule have triggered to
set the flag to true. Or if you use a fact to store the answer, if the fact is
there you can convert, if not (because no rule had triggered) you can't convert.
This way, your table becomes quite simple, but I don't know if my assumption is
generalizable to your whole application.
- Original Message -
From: Michael Anstis michael.ans...@gmail.com
To: Rules Users List rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 5:07:54 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Web decision tables (Guvnor)
Hi Stephen,
You've made my afternoon ;)
The operation of otherwise is rather dumb. It does not have any understanding
of what groups of rows it is meant to limit it's search of values to construct
the not in part.
As you have discovered, in your case, the Account column has no significance at
all (to the web-guided decision table) although it does to the business analyst.
The immediate workaround would be to move each group to a different decision
table; i.e. Account=1 and Account=2. I appreciate your example is probably a
simplification of the real problem.
A better solution would be to furnish the otherwise value with the
information it would need to determine it's search range. e.g. define
otherwise with a key column of Account. This is however an enhancement :(
Feel free to raise a JIRA (for GUVNOR)... no promises as to when I'll get a
chance to do anything about it though :(
More complex requirements exist, for example given:-
Account Qualifier Currency CanTrade
1 A EUR Y
1 A USD Y
1 B IDR Y
1 A Otherwise N
2 A EUR Y
2 B USD Y
2 B Otherwise N
Account=1, Qualifier=A, Otherwise = not in (EUR, USD)
Account=1, Qualifier=B, There is no otherwise
Account=2, Qualifier=A, There is no otherwise
Account=2, Qualifier=B, Otherwise = not in (USD) etc
So Otherwise will need a set of key\group columns.
With kind regards,
Mike
On 10 August 2012 15:50, Stephen Masters stephen.mast...@me.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Given a decision table a bit like this (hopefully the monospaced font lays it
out ok!):
Account Currency CanTrade
1 EUR Y
1 USD Y
1 IDR Y
1 Otherwise N
2 EUR Y
2 USD Y
2 Otherwise N
LHS conditions are generated a bit like this:
account == 1, currency == 'EUR'
account == 1, currency == 'USD'
account == 1, currency == 'IDR'
account == 1, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
account == 2, currency == 'EUR'
account == 2, currency == 'USD'
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
… which has the effect that for account 2, currency IDR, the rule does not
fire. For the business analysts building the rules, this does't make a lot of
sense, as they're expecting it to mean:
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD')
Unfortunately this means that if a currency is permitted for one account, then
a row must be added for every other account, indicating that the currency is
not permitted.
I'm trying to achieve a sensible default (fire the rule to reject the trade)
unless the currency is explicitly permitted.
Is there a decent mechanism for achieving this in a decision table?
One alternative I can think of is to create a technical rule which logically
inserts a rejection which exists as long as this rule hash't fired. But I would
really prefer to avoid doing anything like that, as I reckon it would be
something of a maintenance nightmare.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Steve
___
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
Re: [rules-users] Anyway to get Failed Reason for Failed Rule?
ok this is what I have done. I have create a ResourceChangeScannerConfiguration and applying the changeSet to load the files dynamically. then I have created a KnowledgeAgent and then knowledgebase from Agent. Then in another class I have created knowledgeSession adding EventListeners and logging in each overriden method inside it. Now to fire rules session.fireUntilHalt(AgendaFilter arg); //what will be AgendaFilter here? I am guessing it is the Agenda-Group from my rule file. But how to get it? Also I have dynamically loaded all the rule files, now how am I suppose to get session on the specific rule file that I want to fire on? Please let me know. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Anyway-to-get-Failed-Reason-for-Failed-Rule-tp4019070p4019096.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
Re: [rules-users] Web decision tables (Guvnor)
If any of the positive rules for a Trade (account==N,
currency==XYZ) were to modify or retract the fact a single
low-salience technical rule triggering on the modified or remaining
fact would be sufficient to implement an otherwise for everything.
Which account and which currency is available from the fact itself.
If modifying or retracting is out, consider inserting a Done fact
referring to the Trade, and the low-salience rule is almost as simple.
-W
On 10/08/2012, Stephen Masters stephen.mast...@me.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Given a decision table a bit like this (hopefully the monospaced font lays
it out ok!):
Account Currency CanTrade
1 EUR Y
1 USD Y
1 IDR Y
1 Otherwise N
2 EUR Y
2 USD Y
2 Otherwise N
LHS conditions are generated a bit like this:
account == 1, currency == 'EUR'
account == 1, currency == 'USD'
account == 1, currency == 'IDR'
account == 1, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
account == 2, currency == 'EUR'
account == 2, currency == 'USD'
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
… which has the effect that for account 2, currency IDR, the rule does not
fire. For the business analysts building the rules, this does't make a lot
of sense, as they're expecting it to mean:
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD')
Unfortunately this means that if a currency is permitted for one account,
then a row must be added for every other account, indicating that the
currency is not permitted.
I'm trying to achieve a sensible default (fire the rule to reject the trade)
unless the currency is explicitly permitted.
Is there a decent mechanism for achieving this in a decision table?
One alternative I can think of is to create a technical rule which logically
inserts a rejection which exists as long as this rule hash't fired. But I
would really prefer to avoid doing anything like that, as I reckon it would
be something of a maintenance nightmare.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Steve
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Web decision tables (Guvnor)
Thanks for the feedback chaps.
Wolfgang / Vincent - The real application is evaluating what products (FX
swaps, options, forwards, etc) a particular account is permitted to trade with
different banks. The example provided was rather simplified, just to
demonstrate the workings of a decision table and what I was hoping to do with
it. The way the system is designed, there should always be a rule within that
table, firing and inserting a new fact into working memory. The system collates
responses from a variety of rules in order to provide detailed responses on why
a particular transaction is permitted or not.
My thinking for now is that I'll break it into separate tables, which as per
Mike's response will at least get the 'otherwise' working in a more readable
manner. An added benefit is that this particular decision table had hit a few
hundred rows, and it's looking like a table-per-account approach will be more
manageable. Somewhat like Wolfgang's idea, I think I may handle the potential
of these rules not firing through a separate technical rule which looks to see
whether a rule response fact has been inserted by one of these rules. It's not
too tricky to do, but I had hoped there might be a neater way to do it within
the decision tables. Where possible I like to keep my rules nicely encapsulated
so that future developers won't be caught out by 'hidden' technical rules,
which are tightly coupled to rules which are managed by the business within
Guvnor.
Mike - I'll have a think on wording a Jira enhancement request. I think it
would be useful, so if it's in Jira, then at least it might get built at some
point in the future in the unlikely case that you find yourself with some time
to kill. ;)
Many thanks all,
Steve
On 10 Aug 2012, at 17:00, Wolfgang Laun wrote:
If any of the positive rules for a Trade (account==N,
currency==XYZ) were to modify or retract the fact a single
low-salience technical rule triggering on the modified or remaining
fact would be sufficient to implement an otherwise for everything.
Which account and which currency is available from the fact itself.
If modifying or retracting is out, consider inserting a Done fact
referring to the Trade, and the low-salience rule is almost as simple.
-W
On 10/08/2012, Stephen Masters stephen.mast...@me.com wrote:
Hi folks,
Given a decision table a bit like this (hopefully the monospaced font lays
it out ok!):
Account Currency CanTrade
1 EUR Y
1 USD Y
1 IDR Y
1 Otherwise N
2 EUR Y
2 USD Y
2 Otherwise N
LHS conditions are generated a bit like this:
account == 1, currency == 'EUR'
account == 1, currency == 'USD'
account == 1, currency == 'IDR'
account == 1, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
account == 2, currency == 'EUR'
account == 2, currency == 'USD'
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD', 'IDR')
… which has the effect that for account 2, currency IDR, the rule does not
fire. For the business analysts building the rules, this does't make a lot
of sense, as they're expecting it to mean:
account == 2, currency not in ('EUR', 'USD')
Unfortunately this means that if a currency is permitted for one account,
then a row must be added for every other account, indicating that the
currency is not permitted.
I'm trying to achieve a sensible default (fire the rule to reject the trade)
unless the currency is explicitly permitted.
Is there a decent mechanism for achieving this in a decision table?
One alternative I can think of is to create a technical rule which logically
inserts a rejection which exists as long as this rule hash't fired. But I
would really prefer to avoid doing anything like that, as I reckon it would
be something of a maintenance nightmare.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
Steve
___
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
Re: [rules-users] guvnor 5.4 final turning off authentication
Guvnor 5.4 uses Seam 3 whereas Guvnor 5.3 used Seam 2.
At the same time the org.drools.guvnor.server.security.NilAuthenticator was
removed.
AFAIK you should be able to copy
org.drools.guvnor.server.security.DemoAuthenticator and have it
authenticate regardless of user credentials.
http://docs.jboss.org/seam/3/security/latest/reference/en-US/html/security-authentication.html#d0e212might
be of assistance.
With kind regards,
Mike
On 7 August 2012 15:20, mpgong michael.p.g...@lmco.com wrote:
Hello,
I'm trying to upgrade from 5.3 to 5.4 and i guess i must have configured
5.3
to not authenticate when accessing the resources in guvnor like the
binaries, etc using the REST api because when i try to access them under
5.4
i'm getting the 401 response.
I read that security is configured in the beans.xml i believe but not sure
how to do it properly. I basically want to have no authentication. In 5.3
i believe this was achieved changing the components.xml and adding this
security:identity
authenticate-method=#{nilAuthenticator.authenticate}/.
How do i this under 5.4?
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/guvnor-5-4-final-turning-off-authentication-tp4019042.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
