We're using 5.2.0 final here. What we are also observing is that whenever a process instance reaches a businessruletask node the rule gets fired a number of times equal to the number of instantiated processes even if any of those processes didn't reach the bussinessruletask node.
Does this means that whenever a businessruletask is reached in any of the current process instance, the rule gets fired for *all* the instances of the process and subsequent businessruletask nodes won't fire anything? 2012/2/13 Esteban Aliverti <[email protected]> > I had some tests working fine in jbpm 5.1 but failing in 5.3 because of > this same reason. I'm not sure if this is this is a regression bug or if > there is a deliberated change in the behavior. > Maybe someone in the jbpm dev team can shed some light here. > > Best Regards, > > XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > > Esteban Aliverti > - Developer @ http://www.plugtree.com > - Blog @ http://ilesteban.wordpress.com > > > 2012/2/13 Alberto R. Galdo <[email protected]> > >> >> According to the documentation: >> >> "Rule constraints do not have direct access to variables defined inside >>> the process. >>> It is however possible to refer to the current process instance inside a >>> rule constraint, >>> by adding the process instance to the Working Memory and matching for >>> the process instance in your rule constraint. >>> We have added special logic to make sure that a variable processInstance >>> of type WorkflowProcessInstance >>> will only match to the current process instance and not to other process >>> instances in the Working Memory. >>> Note that you are however responsible yourself to insert the process >>> instance into the session and, >>> possibly, to update it, for example, using Java code or an on-entry or >>> on-exit or explicit action in your process. >>> The following example of a rule constraint will search for a person with >>> the same name as the value stored in the variable "name" of the process:" >>> >> >> >> This however does not seem to be true. >> >> The first rule is to receive a stream of objects of type MyObject. >> This rule starts an associated process. >> >> The second rule will be called by the process (from bpmn). >> >> Within the process there a task that invokes an an asynchronous service, >> ie, >> an implementation of WorkItemHandler that contains a Thread that will set >> call >> manager.completeWorkItem(workItemId,results); >> when 30s have passed). >> >> With this setup we can observe what happens when 2 MyObject instances >> come into the first rule separated by a short period of time (say 5 >> seconds). >> >> When the first object comes in a process is created and started (with >> process id=1) >> The process passes from the start node to the callMyTask node, which >> invokes the slow WorkItemHandler references by MyTask >> (which we have previously registered into session.getWorkItemManager() ). >> Because the WorkItemHandler has a thread that waits 30s before completing >> the work item, it just sits there doing nothing (so far everything is ok) >> and allows the engine to process other events. >> >> 5 seconds later we insert another MyObject into the stream. >> The first rule gets fired and created another process (with process id=2). >> The process passes from the start node to the callMyTask node, which >> invoke our slow service. >> >> We have thus two processes running in parallel. >> >> When the first callMyTask node completes, the next node completeTask is >> invoked. >> >> The rule "process complete" is matched as it belongs to the rule flow >> group "Complete task group". >> >> At this point we observe that the rule is matched twice spitting out: >> >> processInstance.id 2 >> processInstance.id 1 >> . >> So the rule has matched both process instances that are in working memory >> and not just the one (with process id 1) >> that called the "process complete" rule. >> >> >> >> The rule file >> ------------- >> >> rule "New case" >> when >> $myobject : MyObject(processed==false) from entry-point "myobject >> stream" >> then >> ProcessInstance >> processInstance=kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().createProcessInstance("com.mycompany.process.MyProcess", >> parameters); >> insert(processInstance); >> >> kcontext.getKnowledgeRuntime().startProcessInstance(processInstance.getId()); >> modify ($myobject){ >> setProcessed(true) >> } >> end >> >> rule "process complete" >> ruleflow-group "Complete task group" >> no-loop true >> when >> $processInstance: WorkflowProcessInstance() >> then >> System.out.println("processInstance.id " + >> $processInstance.getId()); >> end >> >> >> The BPMN xml >> ------------ >> >> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >> <definitions id="Definition" >> targetNamespace="http://www.jboss.org/drools"; >> typeLanguage="http://www.java.com/javaTypes"; >> expressionLanguage="http://www.mvel.org/2.0"; >> xmlns="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL"; >> xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"; >> xsi:schemaLocation=" >> http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/MODEL BPMN20.xsd" >> xmlns:g="http://www.jboss.org/drools/flow/gpd"; >> xmlns:bpmndi="http://www.omg.org/spec/BPMN/20100524/DI"; >> xmlns:dc="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DC"; >> xmlns:di="http://www.omg.org/spec/DD/20100524/DI"; >> xmlns:tns="http://www.jboss.org/drools";> >> >> <process processType="Private" isExecutable="true" >> id="com.mycompany.process.MyProcess" name="my process" > >> >> <!-- process variables --> >> >> <!-- nodes --> >> <startEvent id="start" name="StartProcess" /> >> >> <task id="callMyTask" name="call my task" tns:taskName="MyTask" > >> <ioSpecification> >> </ioSpecification> >> </task> >> >> >> <businessRuleTask id="completeTask" name="Complete slow task" >> g:ruleFlowGroup="Complete task group" > >> </businessRuleTask> >> >> <endEvent id="end" name="EndProcess" /> >> >> <!-- connections --> >> <sequenceFlow id="start-callMyTask" sourceRef="start" >> targetRef="callMyTask" /> >> <sequenceFlow id="callMyTask-completeTask" sourceRef="callMyTask" >> targetRef="completeTask" /> >> <sequenceFlow id="completeTask-end" sourceRef="completeTask" >> targetRef="end" /> >> </process> >> </definitions> >> >> >> What's wrong with this? Isn't WorkflowProcessInstance() supposed to be >> attached to the calling ProcessInstance? Is there another way of getting >> the group of rules fire only for the processinstance that called it? >> >> >> Greets, >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
