On 04/10/2011 20:17, Edson Tirelli wrote:
The difference in that area from 5.2 to 5.3 is that in 5.3 the
interaction between Terminal Nodes and the agenda was refactored into
a "listerner pattern" . This is required for future features we are
working on. It seems the change introduced the regression.
This is probably enough info to recreate the problem and I bet the
different agenda groups are really important in recreating it.
I am working in a couple tasks at the moment, but if you can
meanwhile open a JIRA with this info I will fix it for the 5.3 final
release. If you can, please try to isolate a test case with this scenario:
"If 021 fires to turn off the lookup AND 042B fires to turn on the
lookup, then 022 gets and NPE."
If you are unable to, no problem.
BTW, I liked Wolfgang's handler as well. If he would like to
contribute the code, more than happy to add it to the codebase.
I've already aplied this to master and the 5.3.x branch:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBRULES-3233
Mark
Edson
2011/10/4 Jamie <js...@llbean.com <mailto:js...@llbean.com>>
Thanks for all of the feedback. I haven't tried W's handler, but I'm
planning to. I did take Edson's advice and was able to get some
more info.
It appears to involve the interaction between 3 rules. For
background, this
is a fraud detection application. Under certain conditions, we
need to look
up additional customer information. Some rules are run to
determine whether
the lookup is required and then another rule actually does the
lookup. In
this case:
Rule 021 says if the order is small, set the lookup flag to false
Rule 042B says if the order is from a 'bad' country, set the
lookup flag to
true
Rule 022 says if the lookup flag is true, do the lookup
If rule 021 fires alone, then 022 does not fire and all is well.
If rule 042B fires alone, then 022 fires and all is well.
If 021 fires to turn off the lookup AND 042B fires to turn on the
lookup,
then 022 gets and NPE.
As Edson suspected, the item is null and the 'rule' variable
points to rule
021.
I'm not sure if it matters, but each rules involved is in a
different agenda
group.
As I mentioned, this works in 5.2.0.Final, but breaks in 5.3.0.CR1.
Hope this helps pinpoint the issue.
--
View this message in context:
http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/5-3-0-CR1-has-broken-existing-rules-flows-tp3390922p3393730.html
Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at 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
--
Edson Tirelli
JBoss Drools Core Development
JBoss by Red Hat @ www.jboss.com <http://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
