Bug 1078839
| Summary: | Guided rule with DSL is not able to build (ERR102) on ibm16 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Retired] JBoss BRMS Platform 6 | Reporter: | Sona Mala <smala> | ||||||
| Component: | Business Central | Assignee: | Mario Fusco <mfusco> | ||||||
| Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Marek Winkler <mwinkler> | ||||||
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |||||||
| Priority: | high | ||||||||
| Version: | 6.0.1 | CC: | kverlaen, lpetrovi, mwinkler, rrajasek, rzhang | ||||||
| Target Milestone: | ER3 | ||||||||
| Target Release: | 6.0.2 | ||||||||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||||||||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: |
ibm jdk 6
|
|||||||
| Last Closed: | 2014-08-06 19:54:44 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: | |||||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||
|
Description
Sona Mala
2014-03-20 11:47:54 UTC
If project contains some corrupted assets, please can you write here why this problem was occured? Created attachment 879525 [details]
Unit test illustrating the DSL parsing problem
Attaching a simple test illustrating the DSL parsing problem on the engine level. If you swap the two DSL lines, the test will succeed. Is this the intended behaviour?
This problem is not limited to the ibm jdk.
Cherry-picked to 6.0.x with https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/commit/67035fa49 Created attachment 894669 [details]
Unit test reproducing backward incompatibility
Unfortunately, the fix has broken backward compatibility (existing DSLs written for 6.x could stop working in 6.0.2), please see the attached unit test. I am not sure how to solve this problem properly, perhaps using a more sophisticated data structure (e.g. a trie) could help, but I feel the solution seems to be getting more complicated than we thought. We would prefer either to solve this problem completely, or revert the previous fix. What do you think? Reverted on master by https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/commit/e1f7fa92f and cherry-picked to 6.0.x branch with https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/commit/ab1cd8ddc Verified on BRMS 6.0.2 ER3. |