On 27/09/2012, Mario Fusco <[email protected]> wrote: I am just guessing now, > but it seems to me that instead of testing lowerBound < value < upperBuond > it is actually only checking lowerBound < upperBuond because the only way > to avoid that the rule fires is to write a pattern like: Cont( 11 < val < > 10
I can confirm your findings. (I should have tested with another nonnull value outside of the range.) But as it is, it's just another bug: not diagnosing and compiling in spite of a syntax error. > > Moreover I cannot find any doc stating that we are supporting that format > of > constraints, neither any test in our code base using them. Ha! Not finding any documentation doesn't mean a thing. I *think* there was a discussion (on the path from 5.2.0 onwards) about permitting such (weird) forms of constraints, but I am not sure at all. Can you confirm > that this constraint format should be supported by Drools? If so I will try > to fix it asap. I'd suggest you just fix the parser so it doesn't accept this and diagnoses an error. Thanks Wolfgang > > Mario > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://drools.46999.n3.nabble.com/how-is-Integer-converted-when-comparing-with-primitive-tp4019975p4020013.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
