Bug 724788 (BRMS-627)

Link: Added: This issue depends JBRULES-2994

As detailed in JBRULES-2994, I added a simple unit test and was unable to reproduce the problem.

https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/commit/412e757542300ebf7974bae3a622e09efe562160

Can you please provide additional info on how to reproduce it?

Thanks,
Edson

The problem occurs only when the event is declared in different package (see the example included).

Created attachment 518653 [details]
Test case

Fixed. Thanks for the additional information. 

Commit was applied to both master and 5.2.x branches:

https://github.com/droolsjbpm/drools/commit/09196b15f018f43c9589111557ef834c9cf1adc1

Edson, please check the release notes content (technical notes field) for accuracy.

Thanks
Lee

    Technical note added. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    New Contents:
Events declared in different packages had an expiration offset of -1 when inspecting the KnowledgeBase through JConsole. The issue was fixed by changing the way multiple type declarations are handled.

    Technical note updated. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    Diffed Contents:
@@ -1 +1,3 @@
+https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724788
+
 Events declared in different packages had an expiration offset of -1 when inspecting the KnowledgeBase through JConsole. The issue was fixed by changing the way multiple type declarations are handled.

Hi Lee,

I am still getting the hang of the BZ process here, so bear with me... :)

Just to clarify, this was a regression more serious than it looked at first sight. There was a bug that was preventing the proper calculation of expiration offsets. So the Drools MBeans were presenting to the JMX console the actual expiration offset that was being used by the engine (-1 meaning those events would never expire). The fix I did was to properly merge type declarations (and expiration policies) from different packages so that the correct expiration offset is now calculated.

How is this usually worded for technical notes?

Thanks,
Edson

Hi Edson, 

thanks for the info. 

The guideline we are using for release notes is to provide: Cause, Consequence, Fix, and Result[1].

What you have provided is perfect, thank you :) 

For future reference it is also fine to provide the information in bullet points, I will always go through and edit (if needed) whatever content is provided, that way you don't need to worry so much about the specific wording, just the information.

The release note text has been added:

A bug prevented the proper calculation of expiration offsets, resulting in the Drools MBeans being presented to the JMX console with no expiration. Type declarations (and expiration policies) from different packages have been merged properly to correct the expiration offset bug, and the correct expiration offset is now calculated.


Thanks
Lee


[1]https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#cf_release_notes

    Technical note updated. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    Diffed Contents:
@@ -1,3 +1,3 @@
 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724788
 
-Events declared in different packages had an expiration offset of -1 when inspecting the KnowledgeBase through JConsole. The issue was fixed by changing the way multiple type declarations are handled.+A bug prevented the proper calculation of expiration offsets, resulting in the Drools MBeans being presented to the JMX console with no expiration. Type declarations (and expiration policies) from different packages have been merged properly to correct the expiration offset bug, and the correct expiration offset is now calculated.

Yes, this is fixed now.

    Technical note updated. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    Diffed Contents:
@@ -1,3 +1 @@
-https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=724788
-
 A bug prevented the proper calculation of expiration offsets, resulting in the Drools MBeans being presented to the JMX console with no expiration. Type declarations (and expiration policies) from different packages have been merged properly to correct the expiration offset bug, and the correct expiration offset is now calculated.

    Technical note updated. If any revisions are required, please edit the "Technical Notes" field
    accordingly. All revisions will be proofread by the Engineering Content Services team.
    
    Diffed Contents:
@@ -1 +1 @@
-A bug prevented the proper calculation of expiration offsets, resulting in the Drools MBeans being presented to the JMX console with no expiration. Type declarations (and expiration policies) from different packages have been merged properly to correct the expiration offset bug, and the correct expiration offset is now calculated.+A bug prevented the proper calculation of expiration offsets, resulting in the Drools MBeans being presented to the JMX console with no expiration. Type declarations (and expiration policies) from different packages have been merged to correct the expiration offset bug, and the correct expiration offset is now calculated.

This product has been discontinued or is no longer tracked in Red Hat Bugzilla.