In your doMove you're doing:
crew.addActivity(activity);
remainingActivities.remove(activity);
If crew and/or remainingActivities are used by your score rules, the
working memory should be notified of their changes.
That's causing the corruption
Extra advice:
I think you're making your moves too complex and your domain model too
complex.
If you upgrade to 5.3, it will be hard to identify the planning
entities. There will be many (and I doubt you need more than 1).
Read
http://docs.jboss.org/drools/release/5.3.0.CR1/drools-planner-docs/html_single/index.html#d0e1411
and specificly this note in that chapter:
/Do not create unnecessary planning entity classes./This leads to
difficult |Move| implementations and slower score calculation.
For example, do not create a planning entity class to hold the total
free time of a teacher, which needs to be kept up to date as the
|Lecture| planning entities change. Instead, calculate the free time
in the score constraints and put the result per teacher into a
logically inserted score object.
If historic data needs to be considered too, then create problem fact
to hold the historic data up to, but /not including/, the planning
window (so it doesn't change when a planning entity changes) and let
the score constraints take it into account.
Op 14-10-11 15:48, Guilherme Kunigami schreef:
2011/10/14 Geoffrey De Smet <ge0ffrey.s...@gmail.com
<mailto:ge0ffrey.s...@gmail.com>>
Probably you forgot to notify the workingMemory.update in the
doMove method:
public void doMove(WorkingMemory workingMemory) {
FactHandle factHandle = workingMemory.getFactHandle(activity);
activity.setAssignee(...);
workingMemory.update(factHandle, activity);
}
Op 14-10-11 09:21, Geoffrey De Smet schreef:
A corrupted score normally indicates a problem with the Move
implementation (or sometimes the score drl).
Basically this happened: for a number of moves, it did the move,
calculated the score and undo the move.
One of those move was associated with a score -10hard/0soft, that
was the best one.
Now, it does that move (which is now called the "step") and when
it calculates the score it's a different score 0hard/0soft.
Try TRACE environment and see if it crashes sooner. Copy paste
your Move implementation here.
Using the TRACE environment gave the same results of DEBUG.
Here's my move implementation, as well as the snipet of drools rule
file that calculates the score based on remaining activities:
http://pastebin.mozilla.org/1355014
In Planner 5.4 there will be 2 out-of-the-box Move
implementations to use, so writing Move's become optional.
Cool!
By the way, I'm using Drools 5.2.0 final.
Thanks,
Op 13-10-11 16 <tel:13-10-11%2016>:37, Guilherme Kunigami schreef:
Hi,
I've implemented a very simple application using drools planner
consisting of a bunch of activities. My rule file is very simple
too and just counts the number of activities not assigned. When
I run Solver.solve(), I get the following error message:
Exception in thread "AWT-EventQueue-0"
java.lang.IllegalStateException: The presumedScore
(-10hard/0soft) is corrupted because it is not the realScore
(0hard/0soft).
Presumed workingMemory:
Score rule (remainingActivitiesCount) has count (1) and weight
total (11).
Real workingMemory:
Score rule (remainingActivitiesCount) has count (1) and weight
total (0).
I've tracked down this message and found this piece of code
@DefaultLocalSearchSolver.solveImplementation():
// there is no need to recalculate the score, but we still need
to set it
localSearchSolverScope.getWorkingSolution().setScore(localSearchStepScope.getScore());
if (assertStepScoreIsUncorrupted) {
localSearchSolverScope.assertWorkingScore(localSearchStepScope.getScore());
}
It seems that the working score is never updated along the
algorithm, but the score in the working memory changes. Thus,
when we use the DEBUG environment, assertStepScoreIsUncorrupted
is turned on and the assertion fails.
Should the score be updated or am I using the library incorrectly?
Thanks,
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto:rules-users@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
--
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org <mailto: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
--
With kind regards,
Geoffrey De Smet
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
rules-users@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
