Bug 724206 (BRMS-149)

Summary:	Prefix 'and' and infix 'and' not interchangeable
Product:	[JBoss] JBoss Enterprise BRMS Platform 5	Reporter:	nwallace <nwallace>
Component:	unspecified	Assignee:	Edson Tirelli <ed.tirelli>
Status:	CLOSED NEXTRELEASE	QA Contact:
Severity:	unspecified	Docs Contact:
Priority:	high
Version:	unspecified
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	5.0.1
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
URL:	http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/BRMS-149
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2009-09-01 12:15:54 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:

Description nwallace 2009-07-07 12:15:50 UTC

Date of First Response: 2009-09-10 00:18:06
Workaround Description: use double () when using not with infix CEs:

either:

not( A() and B() )

or:

not( (and A() B() ) )

securitylevel_name: Public

The documentation on the 'and' Conditional Element seems to imply that these constructs are equivalent:

		$p1:Entity($code1:code)
		not (and
			$p2:Entity(code == $code1)
			 eval(MyStaticClass.match($p1, $p2))
		)

		$p1:Entity($code1:code)
		not (
			$p2:Entity(code == $code1)
			and eval(MyStaticClass.match($p1, $p2))
		)

Actually, the first version crashes with this message:

unknown:93:7 Unexpected token 'and'[96,2]: unknown:96:2 mismatched token: [@792,3685:3685=')',<12>,96:2]; expecting type THEN

I'm on drools 4.0.2 and mvel14-1.2.8.

Comment 1 nwallace 2009-07-07 12:17:00 UTC

Link: Added: This issue is related to JBRULES-1422

Comment 2 nwallace 2009-07-07 12:17:39 UTC

Link: Added: This issue related JBRULES-1422

Comment 3 nwallace 2009-07-07 12:18:29 UTC

Link: Removed: This issue related JBRULES-1422

Comment 4 nwallace 2009-09-01 12:15:54 UTC

Fix in place.

Comment 5 David Le Sage 2009-09-10 04:18:06 UTC

For the errata in the release notes, we require details of:


1.  the FIX (what was changed in the new parser to eliminate this bug).


Dot points will be fine.

Comment 6 David Le Sage 2009-09-23 05:23:11 UTC

We are still awaiting the outstanding information for the Release Notes on this one.  Please provide it as soon as possible. Thanks.

Comment 7 Edson Tirelli 2009-09-24 14:33:34 UTC

The FIX (what was changed to eliminate this bug) and
 * The language grammar used by the new parser was changed to not require double () when using prefix conditional elements.

Comment 8 Dana Mison 2009-10-05 07:08:44 UTC

added as resolved to the 5.0.CP01 release notes:

JBRULES-1422
Conditions using prefix conditional elements would not compile unless they were enclosed by parentheses. The grammar parser has been updated to remove this limitation.