Bug 724210 (BRMS-153)

Summary: RulebasePartitioningTest test failure
Product: [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise BRMS Platform 5 Reporter: nwallace <nwallace>
Component: unspecifiedAssignee: Mark Proctor <mark.proctor>
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-153
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-09-01 12:17:58 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 12:49:13 UTC
Date of First Response: 2009-09-10 00:22:55
securitylevel_name: Public

unit test failure when building MR2 source code 
This works if config.setMultithreadEvaluation( true ); line commented out

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test set: org.drools.integrationtests.RulebasePartitioningTest
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tests run: 1, Failures: 1, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.15 sec <<< FAILURE!
testRulebasePartitions1(org.drools.integrationtests.RulebasePartitioningTest)  Time elapsed: 0.14 sec  <<< FAILURE!
junit.framework.AssertionFailedError: expected:<3> but was:<0>
    at junit.framework.Assert.fail(Assert.java:47)
    at junit.framework.Assert.failNotEquals(Assert.java:282)
    at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:64)
    at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:201)
    at junit.framework.Assert.assertEquals(Assert.java:207)
    at org.drools.integrationtests.RulebasePartitioningTest.testRulebasePartitions1(RulebasePartitioningTest.java:82)

Comment 1 nwallace 2009-07-07 12:50:34 UTC
Link: Added: This issue is related to JBRULES-1867


Comment 2 nwallace 2009-09-01 12:17:58 UTC
Fix in place.

Comment 3 David Le Sage 2009-09-10 04:22:55 UTC
For the errata in the release notes, we require details of:

The CAUSE (what was actually broken)

The FIX (what was changed to eliminate this bug) and 

CONSEQUENCES of the fix (how this benefits users.)


Dot point explanations are fine.

Comment 4 David Le Sage 2009-09-23 05:24:53 UTC
We are still awaiting the outstanding information for the Release Notes on this one.  Please provide it as soon as possible. Thanks.