Re: [rules-users] DSL with multi value selectable listbox
Thanks for the response. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/DSL-with-multi-value-selectable-listbox-tp4019656p4019661.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] Can we use rule "extends" option in decision tables?
Good points. And in fact, decision tables are already designed to do the kind of thing I'm experimenting with using "extends," i.e. they let one put a set of common conditions in one CONDITION column that can be used by one-to-many rules in the table. Is there documentation about how 'extends' works as a rule option? In my experiments so far I see the base rule usually firing before the rule that extends it, but in some cases i see only the extended rule firing, which didn't make sense to me. We're still on 5.2.0.Final though, so maybe things have changed. Don't worry, I'm not going to file a bug report! Just experimenting with this new-to-me feature. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Can-we-use-rule-extends-option-in-decision-tables-tp4019653p4019660.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] DSL with multi value selectable listbox
In order for a multi-select list-box to make sense the operator would need to be "in" or "not in". The operator is not explicitly parsed within a DSL sentence and hence it is impossible to ascertain if the list-box should allow multiple select. If you wanted to generate separate rules for each selected entry in the list-box you could look into using a Rule Template **in the future**. Unfortunately DSL sentences in Guvnor do not currently (5.4.0.Final) support Template Keys, hence the significance of "in the future" in the foregoing sentence. With kind regards, Mike On 7 September 2012 20:23, bhochhi wrote: > Hi, > > Selecting one value from the selectbox using enum is not a problem. But I > am > wondering if it is possible to create a DSL expression where you can select > multiple values from the listbox? > > bhochhi > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/DSL-with-multi-value-selectable-listbox-tp4019656.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] Can we use rule "extends" option in decision tables?
"extends" is not available with rules generated from decision tables. While it wouldn't be a big problem to add an option for adding "extends x" to the rules generated from one table (or even a different extends clause to each of the rules resulting from a table) I can see a problem for coming to grips with what the user will need to write for "x". If "x" is the name of a rule that's defined in a separate DRL: no problem. But what if the user want to extend a rule from another decision table? They have names concocted from a user supplied name and the row in the spreadsheet. The only way to have a reliable reference would be via spreadsheet native cell references. -W On 7 September 2012 20:15, lhorton wrote: > Today's drools blog post ( > http://blog.athico.com/2012/09/conditional-named-consequences-in.html ) > pointed out a rule option I hadn't noticed: the "extends" option to let one > rule extend another one. There is little info in the Expert docs about > this, but I tried it out with drl rules and it seems to work beautifully. > I > can see big potential for simplifying some of our currently quite > repetitive > rules. My question: can this option be used in a decision table and if > so, > how? I don't see any reference to it in the decision table documentation. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Can-we-use-rule-extends-option-in-decision-tables-tp4019653.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] Cancelled step ... : there is no doable move. Terminating phase early.
Op 07-09-12 17:28, Michiel Vermandel schreef: Thanks for the response. Can you tell me if the fix will have any effect on the end-result? I wouldn't expect it to get much better, unless the tabu size was too high and stifling the move selection. But it could be better, try it out. If you do, please let us the know results here (good or bad). Thanks - http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free! Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials From: Geoffrey De Smet To: Michiel Vermandel ; Rules Users List Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Cancelled step ... : there is no doable move. Terminating phase early. Op 07-09-12 15:03, Michiel Vermandel schreef: Hi, I see a warning while solving and I don't really know where to start in finding the cause: Here is the debug output of the solver: >>> I see that step 0 already results in a hard-score 0 (!?) INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:21,969] Solving started: time spend (90), score (null), new best score (null), random seed (0). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,376] Step index (0), time spend (499), score (0hard/99soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#0 -1934359865). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,704] Step index (1), time spend (827), score (0hard/198soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#1 -1934359864). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,990] Step index (2), time spend (1113), score (0hard/297soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#2 -1934359863). >>> then after a few hundred steps the hard-score starts to drop?! DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,166] Step index (260), time spend (8289), score (0hard/24974soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#0 1155198787). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,189] Step index (261), time spend (8312), score (0hard/25049soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#1 1155198788). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,210] Step index (262), time spend (8333), score (0hard/25148soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#0 1313733879). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,234] Step index (263), time spend (8357), score (-1hard/25223soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#1 1313733880). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,255] Step index (264), time spend (8378), score (-1hard/25298soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#0 1418884381). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,281] Step index (265), time spend (8403), score (-1hard/25373soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#1 1418884382). >>> hardscore keeps dropping DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,672] Step index (321), time spend (9795), score (-15hard/28951soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 8748.I#1 192
[rules-users] DSL with multi value selectable listbox
Hi, Selecting one value from the selectbox using enum is not a problem. But I am wondering if it is possible to create a DSL expression where you can select multiple values from the listbox? bhochhi -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/DSL-with-multi-value-selectable-listbox-tp4019656.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] Can we use rule "extends" option in decision tables?
Today's drools blog post ( http://blog.athico.com/2012/09/conditional-named-consequences-in.html ) pointed out a rule option I hadn't noticed: the "extends" option to let one rule extend another one. There is little info in the Expert docs about this, but I tried it out with drl rules and it seems to work beautifully. I can see big potential for simplifying some of our currently quite repetitive rules. My question: can this option be used in a decision table and if so, how? I don't see any reference to it in the decision table documentation. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Can-we-use-rule-extends-option-in-decision-tables-tp4019653.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] Problems with guvnor 5.3.0
Thanks Laune -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Problems-with-guvnor-5-3-0-tp4019647p4019650.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] Cancelled step ... : there is no doable move. Terminating phase early.
Thanks for the response. Can you tell me if the fix will have any effect on the end-result? Thanks - http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free! Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials From: Geoffrey De Smet To: Michiel Vermandel ; Rules Users List Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 4:01 PM Subject: Re: Cancelled step ... : there is no doable move. Terminating phase early. Op 07-09-12 15:03, Michiel Vermandel schreef: Hi, > > >I see a warning while solving and I don't really know where to start in >finding the cause: > > >Here is the debug output of the solver: > > I see that step 0 already results in a hard-score 0 (!?) > > > >INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:21,969] Solving started: time spend (90), score >(null), new best score (null), random seed (0). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,376] Step index (0), time spend (499), score (0hard/99soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#0 -1934359865). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,704] Step index (1), time spend (827), score (0hard/198soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#1 -1934359864). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,990] Step index (2), time spend (1113), score (0hard/297soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#2 -1934359863). > > then after a few hundred steps the hard-score starts to drop?! > > >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,166] Step index (260), time spend (8289), >score (0hard/24974soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#0 >1155198787). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,189] Step index (261), time spend (8312), score (0hard/25049soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#1 1155198788). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,210] Step index (262), time spend (8333), score (0hard/25148soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#0 1313733879). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,234] Step index (263), time spend (8357), score (-1hard/25223soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#1 1313733880). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,255] Step index (264), time spend (8378), score (-1hard/25298soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#0 1418884381). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,281] Step index (265), time spend (8403), score (-1hard/25373soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#1 1418884382). > > > hardscore keeps dropping > > >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,672] Step index (321), time spend (9795), >score (-15hard/28951soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 8748.I#1 >1923067852). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,703] Step index (322), time spend (9826), score (-15hard/29026soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 124206.I#0 2065209261). >DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,719] Step index (323), time spend (9842), score (-15hard/29101soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 124206.I#1 2065209262). >INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:31,719] Phase constructionHeuristic ended: step total (324), time spend (9842), best score (-15hard/29101soft). > > > then I get this warning: > > >WARN : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Cancelled step index (0), time spend >(18375): there is no doable move. Terminating phase early. > This should be fixed for 5.5.0.Beta1 (hopefully released next week). IIRC, It only happened on small datasets, usually when they are close to optimality. Nevertheless, it's a bug (now fixed). > >INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Phase localSearch ended: step total (0), time >spend (18375), best score (-15hard/29101soft). >INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Solving ended: time spend (18375), best score (-15hard/29101soft), average calculate count per second (20824). > >I know I give little details b ut I don't know what is relevant. >If someone can point me into some direction I can search and provide more info. > >Thanks a lot! > >Michiel > > > >- >http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free! >Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials > > >___ 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] Problems with guvnor 5.3.0
Either use
5.4.0
or
for( int i = 0; i < ... )
or
do NOT use dialec "mvel".
-W
On 7 September 2012 16:53, paco wrote:
> Hello everybody
> My rules work well on guvnor 5.0.1
> But when I run on guvnor 5.3.0
> I get the following error:
> Unable to Analyse Expression int i=0; for(i=0; i< $methode.size(); i++) {
> .; };: [Error: no such identifier: i] [Near : {...
> for(i=0; i< $ methode.size(); i++) { }] ^ [Line: 2, Column: 11]
>
> Can someone tell me what does not work well?
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Problems-with-guvnor-5-3-0-tp4019647.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] Problems with guvnor 5.3.0
Hello everybody
My rules work well on guvnor 5.0.1
But when I run on guvnor 5.3.0
I get the following error:
Unable to Analyse Expression int i=0; for(i=0; i< $methode.size(); i++) {
.; };: [Error: no such identifier: i] [Near : {...
for(i=0; i< $ methode.size(); i++) { }] ^ [Line: 2, Column: 11]
Can someone tell me what does not work well?
Thanks
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Problems-with-guvnor-5-3-0-tp4019647.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] Context Sensitivity in DSL
Thanks guys for the responses. I will raise the JIRA. -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Context-Sensitivity-in-DSL-tp4019638p4019646.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] Guvnor Declarative Model
Thanks for quick answers guys! I just realized the original thread never made it trough to the list (the user didn't register probably) the original poster had the same issue on Guvnor, hence the title. Edson I've opened https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3621 for this Unfortunately, I don't have any workaround for this, as I don't know beforehand the structure of the POJO to use (in my use case, there is an additional layer on top of drools, and I don't know the facts). Although I'm not 100% blocked by this, is it possible to reuse the drools code generator manually? That way I could workaround it by generating the class myself and skip the constructor generation? Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:45:02 +0200 From: vincent.legen...@eurodecision.com To: rules-users@lists.jboss.org Subject: Re: [rules-users] Guvnor Declarative Model a workaround could be to use a java pojo, not a declared fact From: "Edson Tirelli" To: "Rules Users List" Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 3:43:04 PM Subject: Re: [rules-users] Guvnor Declarative Model Ouch, more than 255 fields? As of 5.4.x there is no workaround, the engine always tries to generate the constructor. Can you please open a JIRA and we will fix this for the next release? Thank you, Edson On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, JP Chemali wrote: Hi guys, I just stumbled into the same issue in 5.4.0.Final, I think this is caused by https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2652 When declaring a type, a constructor with all fields as parameters is generated automatically, but this causes in our case to hit a barrier of the Java language because the generated constructor has more than 255 parameters Anyone knows if this generation can be skipped (annotation or something else), maybe a safeguard not to generate the constructor when the limit is reached would be nice too? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Guvnor-Declarative-Model-tp4019419p4019637.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 -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.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] Context Sensitivity in DSL
My personal kludge is to write multiple slightly different DSL patterns, which each use different enumerations to pick out the properties user might be interested in. It gives me a means of using DSL in guided rules, which at the expense of larger DSL files, gives the appearance to the business users of being more clever than it really is. It's very limited though… :) On 7 Sep 2012, at 14:48, Michael Anstis wrote: > There is a way :) > > That way would be to raise a JIRA request for Guvnor requesting such a > feature (which, TBH, sounds useful). Eventually we'll get round to it. > > An even quicker way would be to raise a JIRA and accompany it with a pull > request providing the feature :) > > Is there an existing way. No. > > With kind regards, > > Mike > > On 7 September 2012 14:45, dme1 wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any way DSLs can be context sensitive when using these in Guvnor? > What I mean is that if I have DSL for the Class/Object and its field, then > after I select the DSL for the Class/Object can I only see the fields > applicable to that Class/Object (by say selecting/checking a flag or better > still while I am on that condition; and show the list of all DSLs when I add > a new condition). > > This will help our Business Analysts to code rule more quickly, specially > since we have a lot of business vocabulary which the BAs have to see > (Working Sets for filtering vocabulary is not an option). > > Thank, > dme > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Context-Sensitivity-in-DSL-tp4019638.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] Cancelled step ... : there is no doable move. Terminating phase early.
Op 07-09-12 15:03, Michiel Vermandel schreef: Hi, I see a warning while solving and I don't really know where to start in finding the cause: Here is the debug output of the solver: >>> I see that step 0 already results in a hard-score 0 (!?) INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:21,969] Solving started: time spend (90), score (null), new best score (null), random seed (0). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,376] Step index (0), time spend (499), score (0hard/99soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#0 -1934359865). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,704] Step index (1), time spend (827), score (0hard/198soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#1 -1934359864). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,990] Step index (2), time spend (1113), score (0hard/297soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#2 -1934359863). >>> then after a few hundred steps the hard-score starts to drop?! DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,166] Step index (260), time spend (8289), score (0hard/24974soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#0 1155198787). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,189] Step index (261), time spend (8312), score (0hard/25049soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#1 1155198788). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,210] Step index (262), time spend (8333), score (0hard/25148soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#0 1313733879). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,234] Step index (263), time spend (8357), score (-1hard/25223soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#1 1313733880). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,255] Step index (264), time spend (8378), score (-1hard/25298soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#0 1418884381). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,281] Step index (265), time spend (8403), score (-1hard/25373soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#1 1418884382). >>> hardscore keeps dropping DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,672] Step index (321), time spend (9795), score (-15hard/28951soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 8748.I#1 1923067852). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,703] Step index (322), time spend (9826), score (-15hard/29026soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 124206.I#0 2065209261). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,719] Step index (323), time spend (9842), score (-15hard/29101soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 124206.I#1 2065209262). INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:31,719] Phase constructionHeuristic ended: step total (324), time spend (9842), best score (-15hard/29101soft). >>> then I get this warning: WARN : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Cancelled step index (0), time spend (18375): there is no doable move. Terminating phase early. This should be fixed for 5.5.0.Beta1 (hopefully released next week). IIRC, It only happened on small datasets, usually when they are close to optimality. Nevertheless, it's a bug (now fixed). INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Phase localSearch ended: step total (0), time spend (18375), best score (-15hard/29101soft). INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Solving ended: time spend (18375), best score (-15hard/29101soft), average calculate count per second (20824). I know I give little details b ut I don't know what is relevant. If someone can point me into some direction I can search and provide more info. Thanks a lot! Michiel - http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free! Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials ___ 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.
Re: [rules-users] Context Sensitivity in DSL
There is a way :) That way would be to raise a JIRA request for Guvnor requesting such a feature (which, TBH, sounds useful). Eventually we'll get round to it. An even quicker way would be to raise a JIRA and accompany it with a pull request providing the feature :) Is there an existing way. No. With kind regards, Mike On 7 September 2012 14:45, dme1 wrote: > Hi, > > Is there any way DSLs can be context sensitive when using these in Guvnor? > What I mean is that if I have DSL for the Class/Object and its field, then > after I select the DSL for the Class/Object can I only see the fields > applicable to that Class/Object (by say selecting/checking a flag or better > still while I am on that condition; and show the list of all DSLs when I > add > a new condition). > > This will help our Business Analysts to code rule more quickly, specially > since we have a lot of business vocabulary which the BAs have to see > (Working Sets for filtering vocabulary is not an option). > > Thank, > dme > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Context-Sensitivity-in-DSL-tp4019638.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] Rule Static Analysis/Verification
Mike, Does Guvnor support Static Rule Rule Analysis (Duplicates, OVerlaps etc.) across all rules within a package? Same question for Eclipse - support for Static Rule Analysis across all rules (in all packages) within a project? Thanks, dme -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Rule-Static-Analysis-Verification-tp4019612p4019641.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] Context Sensitivity in DSL
Hi, Is there any way DSLs can be context sensitive when using these in Guvnor? What I mean is that if I have DSL for the Class/Object and its field, then after I select the DSL for the Class/Object can I only see the fields applicable to that Class/Object (by say selecting/checking a flag or better still while I am on that condition; and show the list of all DSLs when I add a new condition). This will help our Business Analysts to code rule more quickly, specially since we have a lot of business vocabulary which the BAs have to see (Working Sets for filtering vocabulary is not an option). Thank, dme -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Context-Sensitivity-in-DSL-tp4019638.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] Guvnor Declarative Model
a workaround could be to use a java pojo, not a declared fact - Original Message - From: "Edson Tirelli" To: "Rules Users List" Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 3:43:04 PM Subject: Re: [rules-users] Guvnor Declarative Model Ouch, more than 255 fields? As of 5.4.x there is no workaround, the engine always tries to generate the constructor. Can you please open a JIRA and we will fix this for the next release? Thank you, Edson On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, JP Chemali < jshem...@hotmail.com > wrote: Hi guys, I just stumbled into the same issue in 5.4.0.Final, I think this is caused by https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2652 When declaring a type, a constructor with all fields as parameters is generated automatically, but this causes in our case to hit a barrier of the Java language because the generated constructor has more than 255 parameters Anyone knows if this generation can be skipped (annotation or something else), maybe a safeguard not to generate the constructor when the limit is reached would be nice too? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Guvnor-Declarative-Model-tp4019419p4019637.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 -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.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] Guvnor Declarative Model
Ouch, more than 255 fields? As of 5.4.x there is no workaround, the engine always tries to generate the constructor. Can you please open a JIRA and we will fix this for the next release? Thank you, Edson On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:05 AM, JP Chemali wrote: > Hi guys, > > I just stumbled into the same issue in 5.4.0.Final, I think this is caused > by https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2652 > When declaring a type, a constructor with all fields as parameters is > generated automatically, but this causes in our case to hit a barrier of > the > Java language because the generated constructor has more than 255 > parameters > > Anyone knows if this generation can be skipped (annotation or something > else), maybe a safeguard not to generate the constructor when the limit is > reached would be nice too? > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Guvnor-Declarative-Model-tp4019419p4019637.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 > -- Edson Tirelli JBoss Drools Core Development JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com ___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Guvnor Declarative Model
Hi guys, I just stumbled into the same issue in 5.4.0.Final, I think this is caused by https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-2652 When declaring a type, a constructor with all fields as parameters is generated automatically, but this causes in our case to hit a barrier of the Java language because the generated constructor has more than 255 parameters Anyone knows if this generation can be skipped (annotation or something else), maybe a safeguard not to generate the constructor when the limit is reached would be nice too? -- View this message in context: http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Guvnor-Declarative-Model-tp4019419p4019637.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] Cancelled step ... : there is no doable move. Terminating phase early.
Hi, I see a warning while solving and I don't really know where to start in finding the cause: Here is the debug output of the solver: >>> I see that step 0 already results in a hard-score 0 (!?) INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:21,969] Solving started: time spend (90), score (null), new best score (null), random seed (0). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,376] Step index (0), time spend (499), score (0hard/99soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#0 -1934359865). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,704] Step index (1), time spend (827), score (0hard/198soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#1 -1934359864). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:22,990] Step index (2), time spend (1113), score (0hard/297soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 112474.I#2 -1934359863). >>> then after a few hundred steps the hard-score starts to drop?! DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,166] Step index (260), time spend (8289), score (0hard/24974soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#0 1155198787). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,189] Step index (261), time spend (8312), score (0hard/25049soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 61457.I#1 1155198788). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,210] Step index (262), time spend (8333), score (0hard/25148soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#0 1313733879). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,234] Step index (263), time spend (8357), score (-1hard/25223soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 46045.I#1 1313733880). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,255] Step index (264), time spend (8378), score (-1hard/25298soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#0 1418884381). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:30,281] Step index (265), time spend (8403), score (-1hard/25373soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 23226.I#1 1418884382). >>> hardscore keeps dropping DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,672] Step index (321), time spend (9795), score (-15hard/28951soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 8748.I#1 1923067852). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,703] Step index (322), time spend (9826), score (-15hard/29026soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 124206.I#0 2065209261). DEBUG: [2012-09-07 14:56:31,719] Step index (323), time spend (9842), score (-15hard/29101soft), initialized planning entity (Inspection of 124206.I#1 2065209262). INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:31,719] Phase constructionHeuristic ended: step total (324), time spend (9842), best score (-15hard/29101soft). >>> then I get this warning: WARN : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Cancelled step index (0), time spend (18375): there is no doable move. Terminating phase early. INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Phase localSearch ended: step total (0), time spend (18375), best score (-15hard/29101soft). INFO : [2012-09-07 14:56:40,252] Solving ended: time spend (18375), best score (-15hard/29101soft), average calculate count per second (20824). I know I give little details b ut I don't know what is relevant. If someone can point me into some direction I can search and provide more info. Thanks a lot! Michiel - http://www.codessentials.com - Your essential software, for free! Follow us at http://twitter.com/#!/Codessentials___ rules-users mailing list rules-users@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
Re: [rules-users] Use of Otherwise in converted decision table in Guvnor.
The value in the boolean cells needs to be interpretable as "true". See RuleSheetParserUtil.isStringMeaningTrue(String property) for details:- http://grepcode.com/file/repo1.maven.org/maven2/org.drools/drools-decisiontables/5.4.0.Final/org/drools/decisiontable/parser/RuleSheetParserUtil.java?av=f With kind regards, Mike On 7 September 2012 06:43, Manasi wrote: > > Hi, > > Thanks for your reply. > > for my earlier question no 2) , > In my decision table , I have condition for particular row in decision > table > as following: > > * User Department isAllowed Fields > > Rule1AdminYO * > Field1,Field2 * > > > In above table *** represents value as true or false, as *isAllowed is > boolean.* > After converting above excel decision table in Guvnor format decision > table, > * represents nothing. > > So can I write any particular DRL or BRL fragments in particular row's cell > in decision table (In this case where ever * is mentioned). > > Thanks, > Manasi Damle > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Use-of-Otherwise-in-converted-decision-table-in-Guvnor-tp4019466p4019631.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
