Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Michael Anstis 
My advice is still to mock the service. If the service is too "fat" (I.e.
has alot of business functionality) split it into "thinner" layers until
you isolate the Drools usage and then write a different implementation of
this for your tests.

Sent on the move
On 8 Aug 2014 19:29, "Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)" 
wrote:

>  Hi Michael,
>
> Yes, you are correct. We use the KnowledgeAgent that detects changes to
> rules in Guvnor based upon a changeset.
>
> One more question.  Is there any way I can mock StatelessKnowledgeSession
> so that I can mock the output Fact object.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Santhosh Hegde A
>
>
>
> *From:* rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org [mailto:
> rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] *On Behalf Of *Michael Anstis
> *Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2014 11:28 PM
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor
>
>
>
> Sounds like your service uses KnowledgeAgent that detects changes to rules
> in Guvnor based upon a changeset?
>
> Either way your requirement remains the same: *your* application
> architecture needs to support (at least) the ability to provide different
> changesets (for testing you can use a changeset that points to a local
> folder containing rules rather than Guvnor).
>
> You're not going to be able to avoid mocking some part of your application
> if you don't want to get rules from Guvnor (although I prefer the term
> pluggable - CDI use of @Specialises or @Alternative would be a good
> example, but IDK if you use CDI).
>
> Sent on the move
>
> On 8 Aug 2014 18:03, "san_hegde"  wrote:
>
> Actually during functional testing we want to test our service which in
> turn calls rules and we want to test the service with changing rules.  But
> we do not want to change the rules in Guvnor rather we want to somehow mock
> it.  Means depending on our tests we want to use different modified rules.
> For this if we can mock the session or guvnor or somehow so that we session
> can return the mocked fact depending on our test.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Santhosh Hegde A
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Masters [via Drools] [mailto:ml-node+[hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030609&i=0>]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2014 9:10 PM
> *To:* Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor
>
>
>
> Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a
> session do not connect to Guvnor anyway?
>
>
>
> Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a
> service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could
> also mock the session.
>
>
>
> Although, I must admit I’m not sure what question is being asked...
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis <[hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=0>> wrote:
>
>
>
> I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?
>
>
>
> Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you
> need?
>
>
>
> On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde <[hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=1>> wrote:
>
> Hi ,
>
>
>
> We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to
> connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it.
>
>
>
> For example mocking could be like this.
>
>
>
> We send Fact object as input during calling
> knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that
> fact object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that
> during functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked
> result fact object is returned.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Santhosh Hegde A
>
>
>  --
>
> View this message in context: Mocking Guvnor
> <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601.html>
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive
> <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-User-forum-f47000.html> at
> Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=2>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=3>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>

Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT) 
Hi Michael,

Yes, you are correct. We use the KnowledgeAgent that detects changes to rules 
in Guvnor based upon a changeset.
One more question.  Is there any way I can mock StatelessKnowledgeSession so 
that I can mock the output Fact object.


Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A

From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org 
[mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Michael Anstis
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 11:28 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor


Sounds like your service uses KnowledgeAgent that detects changes to rules in 
Guvnor based upon a changeset?

Either way your requirement remains the same: *your* application architecture 
needs to support (at least) the ability to provide different changesets (for 
testing you can use a changeset that points to a local folder containing rules 
rather than Guvnor).

You're not going to be able to avoid mocking some part of your application if 
you don't want to get rules from Guvnor (although I prefer the term pluggable - 
CDI use of @Specialises or @Alternative would be a good example, but IDK if you 
use CDI).

Sent on the move
On 8 Aug 2014 18:03, "san_hegde" 
mailto:santhosh.he...@hp.com>> wrote:
Actually during functional testing we want to test our service which in turn 
calls rules and we want to test the service with changing rules.  But we do not 
want to change the rules in Guvnor rather we want to somehow mock it.  Means 
depending on our tests we want to use different modified rules.  For this if we 
can mock the session or guvnor or somehow so that we session can return the 
mocked fact depending on our test.

Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A

From: Stephen Masters [via Drools] [mailto:ml-node+<mailto:ml-node%2B>[hidden 
email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030609&i=0>]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 9:10 PM
To: Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a session 
do not connect to Guvnor anyway?

Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a 
service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could 
also mock the session.

Although, I must admit I’m not sure what question is being asked...

Steve


On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis <[hidden 
email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=0>> wrote:

I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?

Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you need?

On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde <[hidden 
email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=1>> wrote:
Hi ,

We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to 
connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it.

For example mocking could be like this.

We send Fact object as input during calling 
knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that fact 
object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that during 
functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked result fact 
object is returned.


Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A


View this message in context: Mocking 
Guvnor<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601.html>
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list 
archive<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-User-forum-f47000.html> at 
Nabble.com<http://Nabble.com>.

___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=2>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=3>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users


___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=4>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030608.html
To start a new topic under Drools: User forum, email [hidden 
email]<http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030609&i=1>
To unsubscribe from Drools: User forum, click here.
NAML<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>

__

Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Michael Anstis 
Sounds like your service uses KnowledgeAgent that detects changes to rules
in Guvnor based upon a changeset?

Either way your requirement remains the same: *your* application
architecture needs to support (at least) the ability to provide different
changesets (for testing you can use a changeset that points to a local
folder containing rules rather than Guvnor).

You're not going to be able to avoid mocking some part of your application
if you don't want to get rules from Guvnor (although I prefer the term
pluggable - CDI use of @Specialises or @Alternative would be a good
example, but IDK if you use CDI).

Sent on the move
On 8 Aug 2014 18:03, "san_hegde"  wrote:

>  Actually during functional testing we want to test our service which in
> turn calls rules and we want to test the service with changing rules.  But
> we do not want to change the rules in Guvnor rather we want to somehow mock
> it.  Means depending on our tests we want to use different modified rules.
> For this if we can mock the session or guvnor or somehow so that we session
> can return the mocked fact depending on our test.
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Santhosh Hegde A
>
>
>
> *From:* Stephen Masters [via Drools] [mailto:ml-node+[hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030609&i=0>]
> *Sent:* Friday, August 08, 2014 9:10 PM
> *To:* Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)
> *Subject:* Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor
>
>
>
> Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a
> session do not connect to Guvnor anyway?
>
>
>
> Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a
> service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could
> also mock the session.
>
>
>
> Although, I must admit I’m not sure what question is being asked...
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
>
>
> On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis <[hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=0>> wrote:
>
>
>
>  I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?
>
>
>
> Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you
> need?
>
>
>
> On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde <[hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=1>> wrote:
>
>  Hi ,
>
>
>
> We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to
> connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it.
>
>
>
> For example mocking could be like this.
>
>
>
> We send Fact object as input during calling
> knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that
> fact object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that
> during functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked
> result fact object is returned.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Santhosh Hegde A
>
>
>  --
>
> View this message in context: Mocking Guvnor
> <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601.html>
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive
> <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-User-forum-f47000.html> at
> Nabble.com.
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=2>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=3>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> [hidden email] <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030608&i=4>
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>  --
>
> *If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion
> below:*
>
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030608.html
>
> To start a new topic under Drools: User forum, email [hidden email]
> <http://user/SendEmail.jtp?type=node&node=4030609&i=1>
> To unsubscribe from Drools: User forum, click here.
> NAML
> <http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml

Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT) 
We are using drools-core 5.2 and Guvnor 5.2.

We are not using kie-ci and not sure if this is available for 5.2

Also is it possible to mock StatelessKnowledgeSession, so that I then even need 
not connect to any repository and just return the output fact object as I need?

Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A


From: rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org 
[mailto:rules-users-boun...@lists.jboss.org] On Behalf Of Mark Proctor
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 10:38 PM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

I should add that nothing on the client side of updates actually talks to 
Guvnor at all. It's all just embedded Maven, interacting via local and remote 
m2 repositories.

It just happens that Guvnor can build and install into a remote m2 repo.

Mark
On 8 Aug 2014, at 18:06, Mark Proctor 
mailto:mproc...@codehaus.org>> wrote:


the updates just go through kie-ci, I'm assuming you are using this. I think 
you could mock this without Guvnor, by creating a temporary local m2_repo and 
add jars there. kie-ci will pick those up and try and apply them.

Mark


On 8 Aug 2014, at 18:02, san_hegde 
mailto:santhosh.he...@hp.com>> wrote:


Actually during functional testing we want to test our service which in turn 
calls rules and we want to test the service with changing rules.  But we do not 
want to change the rules in Guvnor rather we want to somehow mock it.  Means 
depending on our tests we want to use different modified rules.  For this if we 
can mock the session or guvnor or somehow so that we session can return the 
mocked fact depending on our test.

Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A

From: Stephen Masters [via Drools] [mailto:ml-node+[hidden 
email]]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 9:10 PM
To: Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a session 
do not connect to Guvnor anyway?

Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a 
service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could 
also mock the session.

Although, I must admit I'm not sure what question is being asked...

Steve


On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis <[hidden 
email]> wrote:



I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?

Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you need?

On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde <[hidden 
email]> wrote:


Hi ,

We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to 
connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it.

For example mocking could be like this.

We send Fact object as input during calling 
knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that fact 
object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that during 
functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked result fact 
object is returned.


Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A


View this message in context: Mocking 
Guvnor<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601.html>
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list 
archive<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-User-forum-f47000.html> at 
Nabble.com<http://nabble.com/>.

___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users


___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030608.html
To start a new topic under Drools: User forum, email [hidden 
email]
To unsubscribe from Drools: User forum, click here.
NAML<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>

____________
View this message in context: RE: [rules-users] Mocking 
Guvnor<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030609.html>
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list 
archive<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-User-forum-f47000.html> at 
Nabble.com<http://nabble.com/>.
___
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org<mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users


___

Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Mark Proctor 
I should add that nothing on the client side of updates actually talks to 
Guvnor at all. It’s all just embedded Maven, interacting via local and remote 
m2 repositories.

It just happens that Guvnor can build and install into a remote m2 repo.

Mark
On 8 Aug 2014, at 18:06, Mark Proctor  wrote:

> the updates just go through kie-ci, I’m assuming you are using this. I think 
> you could mock this without Guvnor, by creating a temporary local m2_repo and 
> add jars there. kie-ci will pick those up and try and apply them.
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> On 8 Aug 2014, at 18:02, san_hegde  wrote:
> 
>> Actually during functional testing we want to test our service which in turn 
>> calls rules and we want to test the service with changing rules.  But we do 
>> not want to change the rules in Guvnor rather we want to somehow mock it.  
>> Means depending on our tests we want to use different modified rules.  For 
>> this if we can mock the session or guvnor or somehow so that we session can 
>> return the mocked fact depending on our test.
>> 
>>  
>> Thank you
>> 
>> Santhosh Hegde A
>> 
>>  
>> From: Stephen Masters [via Drools] [mailto:ml-node+[hidden email]] 
>> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 9:10 PM
>> To: Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)
>> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a 
>> session do not connect to Guvnor anyway?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a 
>> service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could 
>> also mock the session.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Although, I must admit I’m not sure what question is being asked...
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you 
>> need?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Hi ,
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to 
>> connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it. 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> For example mocking could be like this.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> We send Fact object as input during calling 
>> knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that 
>> fact object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that 
>> during functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked 
>> result fact object is returned.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Thank you
>> 
>> Santhosh Hegde A
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> View this message in context: Mocking Guvnor
>> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> 
>> ___
>> rules-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______
>> rules-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ___ 
>> rules-users mailing list 
>> [hidden email] 
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>> 
>> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion 
>> below:
>> 
>> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030608.html
>> 
>> To start a new topic under Drools: User forum, email [hidden email] 
>> To unsubscribe from Drools: User forum, click here.
>> NAML
>> 
>> 
>> View this message in context: RE: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor
>> 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] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Mark Proctor 
the updates just go through kie-ci, I’m assuming you are using this. I think 
you could mock this without Guvnor, by creating a temporary local m2_repo and 
add jars there. kie-ci will pick those up and try and apply them.

Mark


On 8 Aug 2014, at 18:02, san_hegde  wrote:

> Actually during functional testing we want to test our service which in turn 
> calls rules and we want to test the service with changing rules.  But we do 
> not want to change the rules in Guvnor rather we want to somehow mock it.  
> Means depending on our tests we want to use different modified rules.  For 
> this if we can mock the session or guvnor or somehow so that we session can 
> return the mocked fact depending on our test.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Santhosh Hegde A
> 
>  
> 
> From: Stephen Masters [via Drools] [mailto:ml-node+[hidden email]] 
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 9:10 PM
> To: Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)
> Subject: Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor
> 
>  
> 
> Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a 
> session do not connect to Guvnor anyway?
> 
>  
> 
> Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a 
> service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could 
> also mock the session.
> 
>  
> 
> Although, I must admit I’m not sure what question is being asked...
> 
>  
> 
> Steve
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?
> 
>  
> 
> Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you need?
> 
>  
> 
> On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde <[hidden email]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi ,
> 
>  
> 
> We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to 
> connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it. 
> 
>  
> 
> For example mocking could be like this.
> 
>  
> 
> We send Fact object as input during calling 
> knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that 
> fact object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that 
> during functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked 
> result fact object is returned.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Santhosh Hegde A
> 
>  
> 
> View this message in context: Mocking Guvnor
> Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> 
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> 
>  
> 
> ___
> rules-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> 
> 
> 
> ___ 
> rules-users mailing list 
> [hidden email] 
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
> 
> If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion 
> below:
> 
> http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030608.html
> 
> To start a new topic under Drools: User forum, email [hidden email] 
> To unsubscribe from Drools: User forum, click here.
> NAML
> 
> 
> View this message in context: RE: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor
> 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] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread san_hegde 
Actually during functional testing we want to test our service which in turn 
calls rules and we want to test the service with changing rules.  But we do not 
want to change the rules in Guvnor rather we want to somehow mock it.  Means 
depending on our tests we want to use different modified rules.  For this if we 
can mock the session or guvnor or somehow so that we session can return the 
mocked fact depending on our test.

Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A

From: Stephen Masters [via Drools] 
[mailto:ml-node+s46999n4030608...@n3.nabble.com]
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2014 9:10 PM
To: Ajekar, Santhosh Hegde (HP-IT)
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Mocking Guvnor

Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a session 
do not connect to Guvnor anyway?

Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a 
service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could 
also mock the session.

Although, I must admit I’m not sure what question is being asked...

Steve


On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis <[hidden 
email]> wrote:


I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?

Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you need?

On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde <[hidden 
email]> wrote:

Hi ,

We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to 
connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it.

For example mocking could be like this.

We send Fact object as input during calling 
knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that fact 
object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that during 
functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked result fact 
object is returned.


Thank you
Santhosh Hegde A


View this message in context: Mocking 
Guvnor<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601.html>
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list 
archive<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Drools-User-forum-f47000.html> at 
Nabble.com<http://Nabble.com>.

___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users


___
rules-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users

If you reply to this email, your message will be added to the discussion below:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030608.html
To start a new topic under Drools: User forum, email 
ml-node+s46999n4700...@n3.nabble.com<mailto:ml-node+s46999n4700...@n3.nabble.com>
To unsubscribe from Drools: User forum, click 
here<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=unsubscribe_by_code&node=47000&code=c2FudGhvc2guaGVnZGVAaHAuY29tfDQ3MDAwfC00NDQzMTAxMzA=>.
NAML<http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/template/NamlServlet.jtp?macro=macro_viewer&id=instant_html%21nabble%3Aemail.naml&base=nabble.naml.namespaces.BasicNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NabbleNamespace-nabble.view.web.template.NodeNamespace&breadcrumbs=notify_subscribers%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-instant_emails%21nabble%3Aemail.naml-send_instant_email%21nabble%3Aemail.naml>




--
View this message in context: 
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/Mocking-Guvnor-tp4030601p4030609.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] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Stephen Masters 
Possibly also worth pointing out that inserting a fact and executing a session 
do not connect to Guvnor anyway?

Although, as Mike mentions, the simplest approach tends to be to create a 
service which wraps knowledge base access and mock that. Although you could 
also mock the session.

Although, I must admit I’m not sure what question is being asked...

Steve


On 8 Aug 2014, at 13:07, Michael Anstis  wrote:

> I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?
> 
> Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you need?
> 
> 
> On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde  wrote:
> Hi ,
> 
>  
> 
> We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to 
> connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it. 
> 
>  
> 
> For example mocking could be like this.
> 
>  
> 
> We send Fact object as input during calling 
> knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that 
> fact object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that 
> during functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked 
> result fact object is returned.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you
> 
> Santhosh Hegde A
> 
> 
> View this message in context: Mocking Guvnor
> 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] Mocking Guvnor

2014-08-08 Thread Michael Anstis 
I assume you have a service encapsulating your use of Drools?

Why not mock this service to use an implementation that returns what you
need?


On 8 August 2014 03:13, san_hegde  wrote:

>  Hi ,
>
>
>
> We have requirement where in during functional testing we do not want to
> connect to Guvnor rather want to mock it.
>
>
>
> For example mocking could be like this.
>
>
>
> We send Fact object as input during calling
> knowledgeSession.execute() method and in rule we update the result in that
> fact object itself. So here can we mock the output fact object, so that
> during functional testing we no need to connect to Guvnor rather mocked
> result fact object is returned.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you
>
> Santhosh Hegde A
>
> --
> View this message in context: Mocking Guvnor
> 
> 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