Bug 724202 (BRMS-145) - Multibyte characters in DSL and DRL failures
Summary: Multibyte characters in DSL and DRL failures
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: BRMS-145
Product: JBoss Enterprise BRMS Platform 5
Classification: JBoss
Component: BRE (Expert, Fusion)
Version: 5.0.0 GA
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
urgent
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
: 5.0.1,5.0.1 CR2
Assignee: Ryan Zhang
QA Contact:
URL: http://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/BRM...
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-06-30 12:47 UTC by Michael Neale
Modified: 2013-07-02 09:29 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-10-02 15:35:26 UTC
Type: Bug


Attachments (Terms of Use)
MultibyteDRLTest.log (8.28 KB, text/plain)
2009-09-03 08:36 UTC, Yusuke Yamamoto
no flags Details
MultibyteDSLTest.log (5.53 KB, text/plain)
2009-09-03 08:37 UTC, Yusuke Yamamoto
no flags Details
droolsmultibytetestcase.zip (11.15 KB, application/zip)
2009-09-14 08:59 UTC, Yusuke Yamamoto
no flags Details


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Bugzilla 724217 0 high CLOSED DSL can't support Chinese characters problem 2021-02-22 00:41:40 UTC
Red Hat Issue Tracker BRMS-145 0 Critical Closed Multibyte characters in DSL and DRL failures 2014-02-13 11:17:18 UTC

Internal Links: 724217

Description Michael Neale 2009-06-30 12:47:13 UTC
Date of First Response: 2009-08-21 06:58:37
securitylevel_name: Public

Failures due to multibyte handling.

Comment 1 Michael Neale 2009-06-30 23:28:31 UTC
Link: Added: This issue depends JBRULES-2010


Comment 2 Michael Neale 2009-06-30 23:28:32 UTC
This is the BRMS placeholder for the multibyte fixes

Comment 3 Michael Neale 2009-07-01 00:01:45 UTC
Link: Added: This issue depends JBRULES-2008


Comment 4 trev 2009-08-21 10:58:37 UTC
merged into drools platform branch

Comment 5 Jaroslaw Kijanowski 2009-09-02 11:25:54 UTC
Link: Added: This issue is related to BRMS-160


Comment 6 Yusuke Yamamoto 2009-09-03 08:36:39 UTC
test case log for MultibyteDRLTest

Comment 7 Yusuke Yamamoto 2009-09-03 08:36:39 UTC
Attachment: Added: MultibyteDRLTest.log


Comment 8 Yusuke Yamamoto 2009-09-03 08:37:13 UTC
Attachment: Added: MultibyteDSLTest.log


Comment 9 Yusuke Yamamoto 2009-09-03 08:38:38 UTC
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

Comment 10 Jaroslaw Kijanowski 2009-09-03 09:53:39 UTC
Present in BRMS 5.0.1 CR1

Comment 11 Ryan Zhang 2009-09-14 06:30:55 UTC
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"?




Comment 12 Yusuke Yamamoto 2009-09-14 08:59:10 UTC
Attachment: Added: droolsmultibytetestcase.zip


Comment 13 Yusuke Yamamoto 2009-09-14 09:02:17 UTC
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

Comment 14 Ryan Zhang 2009-09-14 09:51:00 UTC
Tested the updated testcase.
All passed with BRMS 5.0.1


Comment 15 trev 2009-09-14 12:20:05 UTC
Yusuke said the jira can be resolved in email

Comment 16 Edson Tirelli 2009-09-14 13:40:48 UTC
People,

I just came back. My understanding is that this problem is fixed, right? Otherwise, send it my way.

Edson

Comment 17 Julian Coleman 2009-10-02 15:35:26 UTC
Included test case runs with no failures using BRMS 5.0.1 (CR2).


Comment 18 Dana Mison 2009-10-05 08:22:35 UTC
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.

Comment 19 mahesh.kharat 2013-07-02 09:26:10 UTC
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

Comment 20 mahesh.kharat 2013-07-02 09:29:56 UTC
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


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.