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
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
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
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
a workaround could be to use a java pojo, not a declared fact
- Original Message -
From: Edson Tirelli ed.tire...@gmail.com
To: Rules Users List rules-users@lists.jboss.org
Sent: Friday, September 7, 2012 3:43:04 PM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Guvnor Declarative Model
Ouch, more
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
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:
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.
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
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
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
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.
___
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++) { }] ^
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 fifi_nji...@yahoo.fr 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;
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
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
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:
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
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
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'
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
21 matches
Mail list logo
