| Summary: | Multibyte characters in DSL and DRL failures | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise BRMS Platform 5 | Reporter: | Michael Neale <michael.neale> | ||||||||
| Component: | BRE (Expert, Fusion) | Assignee: | Ryan Zhang <rzhang> | ||||||||
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | |||||||||
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |||||||||
| Priority: | urgent | ||||||||||
| Version: | 5.0.0 GA | CC: | mahesh.kharat | ||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||
| Target Release: | 5.0.1, 5.0.1 CR2 | ||||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||||
| URL: | http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/BRMS-145 | ||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||||||
| Last Closed: | 2009-10-02 15:35:26 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||||||
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||
|
Description
Michael Neale
2009-06-30 12:47:13 UTC
Link: Added: This issue depends JBRULES-2010 This is the BRMS placeholder for the multibyte fixes Link: Added: This issue depends JBRULES-2008 merged into drools platform branch Link: Added: This issue is related to BRMS-160 test case log for MultibyteDRLTest Attachment: Added: MultibyteDRLTest.log Attachment: Added: MultibyteDSLTest.log ran two test cases attached to JBRULES-2008. Two test methods in MultibyteDRLTest failed. MultibyteDSLTest.java -> passed 1/1 failed 0/1 MultibyteDRLTest.java -> passed 7/9 failed 2/9 testmultibyteFunctionName1 and testmultibyteFunctionName2 fail. Please do integrate the testcase attached to JBRULES-2010. logs attached. Thanks, Yusuke Present in BRMS 5.0.1 CR1 Sorry, Looking at the testcase multibyteFunctionName1-utf8.drl and multibyteFunctionName2-utf8.drl. Noticed that "$field2" is not defined, is it supposed to be failed with "$field2 cannot be resolved"? Attachment: Added: droolsmultibytetestcase.zip I remember that all of those test cases passed successfully and am not sure how those two cases were broken. Please try the attached one. Following three files were fixed and confirmed to pass with drools-compiler 5.1.0-SNAPSHOT on my box: MultibyteDRLTest.java multibyteFunctionName1-utf8.drl multibyteFunctionName2-utf8.drl Tested the updated testcase. All passed with BRMS 5.0.1 Yusuke said the jira can be resolved in email People, I just came back. My understanding is that this problem is fixed, right? Otherwise, send it my way. Edson Included test case runs with no failures using BRMS 5.0.1 (CR2). added to the 5.0.CP01 release notes as resolved: JBRULES-1994 The compiler was failing to process DSL and DRL files containing multi-byte characters. The parser now fully supports Unicode multi-byte text. Hi, I am using windows 7 with jdk 1.7 installed. On drools side, I am using Drools_ 5.5.0.final. I tried the code given on this post which tries to parse multibyte characters in DRL but somehow the code is not working properly. It is failing to parse the DRL file itself. 1. What could be the problem? 2. Am I missing something? 3. For these test cases to run, any specific environment was used? 4. Any environment changes on my machine needed? Following is few log snippets which I am getting on console while trying to run test case of "multibyteFieldName1-utf8.drl" [6,5]: [ERR 101] Line 6:5 no viable alternative at input '' [6,9]: [ERR 101] Line 6:9 no viable alternative at input '' [6,15]: [ERR 101] Line 6:15 no viable alternative at input '' [6,17]: [ERR 101] Line 6:17 no viable alternative at input '' [6,21]: [ERR 101] Line 6:21 no viable alternative at input '' [6,24]: [ERR 101] Line 6:24 no viable alternative at input '' [6,27]: [ERR 101] Line 6:27 no viable alternative at input '' [6,29]: [ERR 101] Line 6:29 no viable alternative at input '' [6,30]: [ERR 101] Line 6:30 no viable alternative at input '' [6,32]: [ERR 101] Line 6:32 no viable alternative at input '' [6,33]: [ERR 101] Line 6:33 no viable alternative at input '' [9,14]: [ERR 101] Line 9:14 no viable alternative at input '' [9,18]: [ERR 101] Line 9:18 no viable alternative at input '' [9,24]: [ERR 101] Line 9:24 no viable alternative at input '' [9,26]: [ERR 101] Line 9:26 no viable alternative at input '' [9,30]: [ERR 101] Line 9:30 no viable alternative at input '' [9,33]: [ERR 101] Line 9:33 no viable alternative at input '' [9,36]: [ERR 101] Line 9:36 no viable alternative at input '' [9,38]: [ERR 101] Line 9:38 no viable alternative at input '' [9,39]: [ERR 101] Line 9:39 no viable alternative at input '' [9,41]: [ERR 101] Line 9:41 no viable alternative at input '' [9,42]: [ERR 101] Line 9:42 no viable alternative at input '' [6,6]: [ERR 102] Line 6:6 mismatched input '¥æœ' in rule "multibytefield" [0,0]: Parser returned a null Package Please provide your input on this. Thanks, Mahesh Kharat Hi, I am using windows 7 with jdk 1.7 installed. On drools side, I am using Drools_ 5.5.0.final. I tried the code given on this post which tries to parse multibyte characters in DRL but somehow the code is not working properly. It is failing to parse the DRL file itself. 1. What could be the problem? 2. Am I missing something? 3. For these test cases to run, any specific environment was used? 4. Any environment changes on my machine needed? Following is few log snippets which I am getting on console while trying to run test case of "multibyteFieldName1-utf8.drl" [6,5]: [ERR 101] Line 6:5 no viable alternative at input '' [6,9]: [ERR 101] Line 6:9 no viable alternative at input '' [6,15]: [ERR 101] Line 6:15 no viable alternative at input '' [6,17]: [ERR 101] Line 6:17 no viable alternative at input '' [6,21]: [ERR 101] Line 6:21 no viable alternative at input '' [6,24]: [ERR 101] Line 6:24 no viable alternative at input '' [6,27]: [ERR 101] Line 6:27 no viable alternative at input '' [6,29]: [ERR 101] Line 6:29 no viable alternative at input '' [6,30]: [ERR 101] Line 6:30 no viable alternative at input '' [6,32]: [ERR 101] Line 6:32 no viable alternative at input '' [6,33]: [ERR 101] Line 6:33 no viable alternative at input '' [9,14]: [ERR 101] Line 9:14 no viable alternative at input '' [9,18]: [ERR 101] Line 9:18 no viable alternative at input '' [9,24]: [ERR 101] Line 9:24 no viable alternative at input '' [9,26]: [ERR 101] Line 9:26 no viable alternative at input '' [9,30]: [ERR 101] Line 9:30 no viable alternative at input '' [9,33]: [ERR 101] Line 9:33 no viable alternative at input '' [9,36]: [ERR 101] Line 9:36 no viable alternative at input '' [9,38]: [ERR 101] Line 9:38 no viable alternative at input '' [9,39]: [ERR 101] Line 9:39 no viable alternative at input '' [9,41]: [ERR 101] Line 9:41 no viable alternative at input '' [9,42]: [ERR 101] Line 9:42 no viable alternative at input '' [6,6]: [ERR 102] Line 6:6 mismatched input '¥æœ' in rule "multibytefield" [0,0]: Parser returned a null Package Please provide your input on this. Thanks, Mahesh Kharat |