I want to know how to modify a object in a list . I tried following, but it gives a error.
when
Category( $bookList : books )
UserProfile( profile == UserProfile.STUDENT )
$book : Book( student == true )
$category : Category( books contains $group )
then
modify( $category.books[$book] ) { setEligible(true) }
end
Book.setEligible is the method i need to call. But i need to call this for selected object in Cagegory.books list. What am i doing wrong ? can anyone help ?
Thanks !
First thing: Are you sure you want to include 2 different Category patterns in your rule? If you have 2 different categories, you may end up with 4 executions of that rule.
Second thing, if you want to modify the book, why don't you just do:
modify($book) {
setEligible(true)
}
Hope it helps,
You also need to make sure that Book is a fact.. that means that you are inserting that Fact into the Ksession..
What is the error that you are getting? which version of drools are you using?
I am modifying an item in a nested collection like this...
[using "from"]
rule "4G complete"
salience -1
when
$tr: TopTowerResult()
$ptncascade: PtnCascade() from $tr.cascadeList
Timestamp() from $ptncascade.cascadeFact.actual4g
then
$ptncascade.getCascadeFact().setComplete4g(true);
$ptncascade.getCascadeFact().setEstimate4g("Completed");
end
Explanation -
This line matches every instance of PtnCascade in $tr.cascadeList
You could add an additional pattern here to limit the selected items from the list.
$ptncascade: PtnCascade() from $tr.cascadeList
The next line operates on every instance of PtnCascade() that was matched.
Timestamp() from $ptncascade.cascadeFact.actual4g
The consequence also operates on the specific PtnCascade that was matched in the list -
$ptncascade.getCascadeFact().setComplete4g(true);
Related
I have got below structure in Java:
public class Request {
List<Product> product;
List<Account> accounts;
}
public class Product {
String productIdOne;
String productIdTwo;
String productTax;
}
public class Account {
List<ProductRelationship> productsRelationship;
}
public class ProductRelationship {
String productIdOne;
String productIdTwo;
}
And the request is the fact object send to drools. I am wondering how I can check if there is at least one product that productTax is set to 'true' and there is a relationship between one account and one product. In other words, if there is a product with tax set to true and at least one account contains a relationship with this product (by productIdOne and productIdTwo) then the rule result should pass;
The main issue is that the list of the product relationship is inside the account list.
Thanks for any advice
You have a rather straight-forward set of conditions, so it is possible to write a relatively simple rule to check them. I will consider each condition separately and then combine them into a final rule.
As you wrote:
there is at least one product that productTax is set to 'true'
Now, as you mentioned, your rule inputs are the Request instance which contains two lists (products, accounts.) We'll start by declaring that:
rule "Account exists with taxed product"
when
Request( $products: product != null,
$accounts: accounts != null )
Next, we want to find the taxed product. If we only wanted to prove the existence of the product, we could use an exists( ... ) condition, which is extremely fast. However since we want to do further comparisons, we'll want to actuall find the product with this condition and save a reference to it.
$taxedProduct: Product( productTax == "true" ) from $products
I've assumed here that any value other than exactly "true" is indicative of an untaxed product. You should adjust as needed (and possibly consider changing this type to a boolean.)
The next condition is to find the account:
there is a relationship between one account and [the taxed] product
First, we'll need to update our $taxedProduct declaration and get references to its ids:
$taxedProduct: Product( productTax == "true",
$id1: productIdOne,
$id2: productIdTwo ) from $products
Now we need to find an account with a matching relationship.
$account: Account( $relationships: productsRelationship != null ) from $accounts
exists( ProductRelationship( productIdOne == $id1,
productIdTwo == $id2 ) from $relationships )
Here, I used an exists condition for the relationship because we don't need to refer to the relationship itself ever again, just verify that the relationship exists. I did declare a variable $account to point to the account that has the product relationship.
Putting it all together, we have:
rule "Account exists with taxed product"
when
Request( $products: product != null,
$accounts: accounts != null )
$taxedProduct: Product( productTax == "true",
$id1: productIdOne,
$id2: productIdTwo ) from $products
$account: Account( $relationships: productsRelationship != null ) from $accounts
exists( ProductRelationship( productIdOne == $id1,
productIdTwo == $id2 ) from $relationships )
then
// We have a taxed product $taxedProduct
// and an associated account $account
end
When I first started with Drools I found it difficult to wrap my head around the way it treated objects in lists, which is why the ProductRelationship sub-list seems like a tricky issue on its face. What Drools is going to do is iterate through the $products list and find those Product instances that meet our criteria (namely, have productTax == "true".) Once it has found these taxed products, it then similarly goes through the $accounts list and finds all Accounts that meet the criteria (which have a productsRelationship list.) Then for each of those accounts, it is going to test that there exists a relationship as we've defined.
This is a simplified explanation, of course, but it helps to form a mental model of roughly what Drools is doing here. In reality Drools is much more efficient than then roughly O(n^3) workflow I've just described.
An interesting thing you should keep in mind is that this rule is not going to "stop" as soon as it finds a match. If you have two taxed products that have a relationship to a single account, this rule will fire twice -- once for each taxed product. Or, alternatively, if you have one taxed product and two accounts that have a relationship to it, the rule will fire twice (once for each account.) Basically, the rule will fire once for each "match" it finds in the given request.
can you try this following
rule "sample"
no-loop
when
request:Request(accountList: accounts)
request1:Request(productList: product)
Account(productsRelationshipList:ProductRelationship) from accountList
Product(productId contains productsRelationshipList, productTax = true ) from productList
then
System.out.println("Rule fired satisfied");
end
I have in my index a list of object, each of them has an objectID value.
On some search, i want to filter OUT a certain number of them, using there objectID.
For the moment it works with one value as a string, i would like to know how to do for multiple value.
filters = 'NOT objectID:' + objectIDToFilter;
This work for one object, what can i do to apply this for an array of ObjectID. because :
filters = 'NOT objectID:' + arrayObjectID;
does not work.
I was thinking of generating a huge string with an arrayId.map with all my 'NOT objectID:1 AND NOT objectID: 2 ...' but i wanted to know if there is a cleaner way to do it.
I unfortunately misunderstood the line in algolia doc :
Array Attributes: Any attribute set up as an array will match the filter as soon as one of the values in the array match.
This apparently refers to the value itself in Algolia and not the filter
So i did not found a solution on algolia doc, i went for the long string, hope there is no limits on how much filter we can add on a query (found nothing about that).
Here is what i did if someone need it :
let filters = `NOT objectID:${userID}`;
blockedByUsers.map((blockedByUser) => {
filters = filters + ` AND NOT objectID:${blockedByUser}`;
});
If you need to add multiple but don't have a starting point like i do, you can't start the query with an AND , a solution i found to bypass that:
let filters = `NOT objectID:${blockedByUsers[0]}`;
blockedByUsers.map((blockedByUser, i) => {
if (i > 0) filters = filters + ` AND NOT objectID:${blockedByUser}`;
});
There is probably a cleaner solution, but this work. If you have found other solution for that problems i'll be happy to see :)
I can't perform a wildcard-query on an embedded-list property of vertex (or edge).
For example:
Assume we have a Person class with a multi-value property named Nicknames and one instance of it:
{
"#type": "d",
"#rid": "#317:0",
"#version": 1,
"#class": "Person",
"Nicknames": [
"zito",
"ziton",
"zitoni"
]
}
then,
Select FROM Person WHERE Nicknames like "zit%"
returns empty result-set, while:
Select FROM Person WHERE Nicknames ="zito" returns 1 item correctly.
There's a NOTUNIQUE_HASH_INDEX index on the field Nicknames.
I've tried many ways (contains, index-query...) with no luck :(
I'm probably missing something basic.
I know is not an ideal solution what i'm going to write but, to stay stuck with your requirement of "query by wildcard" this is the only way that worked for me, as AVK stated is a better idea work with a Lucene index, but with the standard implementation i was unable to let it work, now here what i've done:
Use studio to create a javascript function with 2 parameter with name "array" and "rule", lets name the function "wildcardSearch"
past this code in the body of the function (is just simple javascript change it if it dosent do the job) :
for(i=0; i<array.length ; i++){
rule= rule.split("*").join(".*");
rule= rule.split("*").join(".*");
rule= "^" + ruleValue + "$";
var regex = new RegExp(rule);
if (regex.test(array[i]))
return true;
}
return false;
Remember to save the fucntion
now you can query:
Select from Person where wildcardSearch(nicknames,'zit*')=true
CONSIDERATIONS: is a brute force method, but show how "funny" can be play around with the "stored procedure" in OrientDb so i've decided to share it anyway, if performance are your main goal this things is not for you, it scan all the class and do the loop on the array to apply the regex. An Index is a way better solution, or change your db with a different data structure.
You can try this:
select from Person where Nicknames containstext 'zit'
Hope that helps
I got an extension in which i want to include some filters, i know figured out that i can filter the results that are shown of my listAction() by using findBy.
I tested it and it worked like this:
$cars = $this->carRepository->findByCarid("1");
$this->view->assign('cars', $cars);
My problem now is i need to filter the result with more than one Parameter, what if i want to add findByColor("blue") so it gives me all cars wit hid 1 and color blue? What solution does extbase have for that kind of search queries? i can`t find anything good or understandable in the documentation.
You have to extend you repository and code this functionality on your own. Extbase offers you a simple but powerful API to do so.
class whatEverYourRepositoryIsCalled extends \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Persistence\Repository {
public function findByFilter($carId, $color) {
// Create empty query = select * from table
$query = $this->createQuery();
// Add query options
return $query->matching(
// ALL conditions have to be met (AND)
$query->logicalAnd(
// table column carId must be euqal to $carId
$query->equals('carId', $carId),
// table column color must be euqal to $color
$query->equals('color', $color)
)
);
}
}
This is a quite simple approach to your problem. In a real world scenario I would probably use an array of filter criteria to do the filtering like array('carId' => 1, 'color' => 'blue'). Inside of findByFilter() those values would be extracted and added to the query.
The key is to build the desired query. A quite comprehensive explanation of how to do that can be found at http://blog.typoplanet.de/2010/01/27/the-repository-and-query-object-of-extbase/. Unfortunately it's not completely up to date but the part about constructing queries is still valid.
I have an object graph that I am trying to generate Fulfillment object from in Drools. Specifically, Fulfillment objects represent a rule that is either satisfied, or unsatisfied. My object graph looks like the following:
Users ---> many Requirements --> Event
`--> many Records ----^
Records can fulfill Requirements if they both point at the same Event. This produces a Fulfillment object in Drools.
A reduce down rule to produce Fulfillments is the following:
rule "fulfils"
when
$u : User()
$rec : Record() from $u.records
$r : Requirement(event contains $rec.event) from $u.requirements
then
insertLogical( new Fulfillment($u, $rec, $r, true));
System.out.println("Inserting logical");
end
rule "unfulfils"
when
$u : User()
$rec : Record() from $u.records
$r : Requirement(event not contains $rec.event) from $u.requirements
then
insertLogical( new Fulfillment($u, $rec, $r, false));
System.out.println("Inserting logical");
end
query "fulfillment"
$fulfillment : Fulfillment()
end
The problem I run into here is if the user has no records, there is no Fulfillment inserted for the requirement. I believe this is because there is no Record() to search on to satisfy my graph.
Is there a way to use the records without requiring more than zero to exist?
Also, do I need two rules here to insert both true and false Fulfillments or is there a better way to do this?
Edit
Another problem I am facing with these rules is the Requirement(event contains $rec.event) does not accomplish the task of finding if any records satisfy the given collection of events. Is there a better way to find if there exists an overlap between the many record's single events, and the single requirements multiple events?
Another Edit
Here's another approach I thought up. Instead of inserting Fulfillments if a requirement/record pair is not found, why not just insertLogical Fullfillments for all Requirements that have no matching positive Fullfillment:
rule "unfulfils"
when
$u : User()
$r : Requirement() from $u.requirements
not(Fulfillment(user == $u, requirement == $r, fulfilled == true))
then
insertLogical( new Fulfillment($u, null, $r, false));
System.out.println("Inserting logical");
end
query "fulfillment"
$fulfillment : Fulfillment()
end
This takes care of the issue of comparing the overlap of two collections, and the case where a user has no records. (Would appreciate some validation on this).
Using 2 different rules for your situation is a common pattern. It makes your rule base easier to read (and in a way to maintain too).
Regarding your question about no Record(), I think you could write something like this (If I understood your question correctly):
rule "unfulfils because of no Record"
when
$u : User(records == null || records.empty == true) //A user without records
$r : Requirement() from $u.requirements // but with Requirements
then
//You don't have a record to set in your Fulfillment object
insertLogical( new Fulfillment($u, $rec, null, false));
System.out.println("Inserting logical");
end