Mike,
Thanks for the quick response. I downloaded the war and tested the fix. The
order of the conditions are correct now. There is still a small problem in the
last condition.
In Drools 5.0 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact(
hasAnyAccountClosed == "false" ).
In Drools 5.3 the source is consumerAccount : ConsumerAccountAssociationFact(
hasAnyAccountClosed == false ). It displays a square check box in the cell.
Could you please take a look?
Thanks,
Jian
________________________________
From: Michael Anstis <[email protected]>
To: jian zhi <[email protected]>; Rules Users List
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 4:55 AM
Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to 5.3Final
You can get a build containing the fix from Nexus:
https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/index.html#nexus-search;gav~org.drools~guvnor-webapp~5.3.2-SNAPSHOT~~
2012/2/8 jian zhi <[email protected]>
Mike,
>
>
>Is it possible to release a patch of 5.3?
>
>
>Thanks,
>Jian
>
>
>
>________________________________
> From: Michael Anstis <[email protected]>
>To: Rules Users List <[email protected]>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 8, 2012 3:17 AM
>
>Subject: Re: [rules-users] Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 to
>5.3Final
>
>
>
>The problem has existed since 5.2 and would potentially affect loading any
>earlier version.
>Prior to 5.2 the object model used by the guided decision table did not hold a
>Pattern to which individual condition columns are bound.
>The conversion code groups individual condition columns into the appropriate
>group and moves the underlying column data accordingly (as there was no
>guarantee columns with the same bound name were consecutive).
>There was a problem with the creation and insertion of the new Pattern objects
>that relied upon the order of entries in a HashMap being consistent. This has
>now changed.
>I know others have been using the new guided decision table with old
>repositories without problem and our unit tests did not detect the problem
>either.
>AFAIK this is the first report of any such issue since the release of 5.2's
>betas, however I would be wrong to say there is no risk.
>sent on the move
>On 8 Feb 2012 01:22, "vadlam" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>does this issue happen for any previous version of Guvnor data such as 5.0
>>or 5.1 or 5.2 exported and imported into a Guvnor 5.3 repository ?
>>
>>does this mean, we cannot rely on 5.3.0 version of Guvnor code when
>>migrating data from a previous version and should rather apply the fix ?
>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>View this message in context:
>>http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/rules-users-Migrating-repository-data-from-Drools-5-0-to-5-3Final-tp3715772p3724570.html
>>Sent from the Drools: User forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>_______________________________________________
>>rules-users mailing list
>>[email protected]
>>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>rules-users mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
>
>
_______________________________________________
rules-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/rules-users
