How is "not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two different
rules whose conditions are mutually exclusive, like the following:
rule "Rule One"
when
not NegativeResult()
then
insertLogical(new ApplicantStatus("Approved"));
end
rule "Rule Two"
when
NegativeResult()
then
insertLog
Hans,
If you change "not NegativeResult()" to "not (exits
NegativeResult())" this should result in the expected behaviour.
Cheers,
Ingomar
Am 31.07.2008 um 17:19 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How is "not" supposed to work with insertLogical? Assume I have two
different rules whose conditio
Ingomar,
I tried this, and indeed that worked. I was surprised, as I thought "not" was
meant more to mean that a fact inside its parentheses did not exist, rather
than a logical negation, which is the way you used it in your example. However,
if I do what you said, it does work exactly how I ex
Hans,
Your reasoning is correct. There should not be 2 instances of
ApplicantStatus in the working memory.
Can you provide a test case showing the problem? we have test cases here
using "not" and logical assertions, and it works properly.
Thanks,
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTE
Hmm, in this case, it is definitively a bug. "not" IS the existential
qualifier, i.e., the constrary of exists. So it should be simply redundant
to write "not exists". Need to investigate that.
[]s
Edson
2008/7/31 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Ingomar,
>
> I tried this, and indeed that worked.
Hans,
I checked the docs and as Edson says it should work without the
exists( ).
Strange that never worked for me.
Maybe we all learn something if you can carve out a test-case.
Strange.
--I
Am 31.07.2008 um 19:29 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Ingomar,
I tried this, and indeed that worked.
Edson,
I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case, three
fact objects, and the drl.
One key to this test are the fact that the Applicant fact object has an
"equals" method that tests for equali
How is your rule base configured, with identity or equality assert
behavior?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not
ED]
Sent: Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Rules Users List
Subject: Re: [rules-users] "Not" Non-Existential Quantifier
Edson,
I finally succeeded in coming up with a simple test case that shows the
problem. I have attached the necessary files, which include a test case, three
fact
I am observing, however. I am finding
>> ApplicantStatus facts with both reasons in working memory at the end of
>> the rules run. Should "not" work as I expect with regard to inserting a fact
>> via insertLogical()? Or is this a known limitation, or simply the way it
>> is
w is your rule base configured, with identity or equality assert
> behavior?
>
> --
> *From:* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] *On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 04, 2008 9:59 AM
> *To:* Rules Users List
> *Subj
s-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss, a division of Red Hat @ www.jboss.com
-- Mensagem encaminhada --
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Rules Users List
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:49:37
12 matches
Mail list logo
