This is fine. 5.2 onwards groups columns for the same pattern together - if you looked at the DRL fo 5.0 you'd have seen the columns are effectively grouped together too.
For example; given the following 5.0 configuration (taken from what you describe you have done):- Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1 Pattern $b : Column B - Condition 1 Pattern $c : Column C - Condition 1 Pattern $d : Column D - Condition 1 Pattern $a : Column E - Condition 2 Pattern $b : Column F - Condition 2 5.0 DRL $a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 ) $b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 ) $c : Pattern( Condition 1 ) $d : Pattern( Condition 1 ) Importing this into 5.3 groups the columns:- Pattern $a : Column A - Condition 1 Pattern $a : Column B - Condition 2 Pattern $b : Column C - Condition 1 Pattern $b : Column D - Condition 2 Pattern $c : Column E - Condition 1 Pattern $d : Column F - Condition 1 5.2 DRL $a : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 ) $b : Pattern( Condition 1, Condition 2 ) $c : Pattern( Condition 1 ) $d : Pattern( Condition 1 ) Furthermore, at the request of the community, the behavior of "default values" changed so that the are only the default value for a new row (5.2 onwards) and not the value used for an empty cell (5.0). I know this has caused some re-work for people migrating a legacy decision table from 5.0 to 5.2 but since the impact, to date, has been small I do not plan on making any programmatic changes. With kind regards, Mike 2012/2/13 jian zhi <[email protected]> > Mike, > > Thanks for the detail explanation. > > I found that the order of the conditions were changed again after I added > two more conditions to the same package I used last time. > I added default value to the first two conditions. Added the fifth > condition by using the binding name created for the first condition.Add the > sixth condition by using the binding name created for the second condition. > After I import the data to 5.3 the fifth condition became the second and > the sixth condition became the fourth. Also the default value for the first > and second conditions are not listed in the rule source in 5.3. Could you > please take a look? I attach the modified repository in the email. > > Thanks a lot, > Jian > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Michael Anstis <[email protected]> > *To:* drools-user <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Friday, February 10, 2012 12:59 PM > *Subject:* [rules-users] Fwd: Migrating repository data from Drools 5.0 > to 5.3Final > > I suspect ConsumerAccountAssociationFact.hasAnyAccountClosed is a boolean. > > In 5.3 we handle data-types better than 5.0, so String, Numbers, Dates are > Booleans have editors appropriate for the data-type and the resulting DRL > only escapes values with quotation marks where needed (i.e. Strings and > Dates). Boolean's in the table are now shown as Checkboxes. If the value is > "true" it is ticked, if the value is "false" the checkbox is not ticked. > > I don't therefore believe there is any problem. > > On 10 February 2012 16:35, jian zhi <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
