This content has been marked as final. Show 4 replies
I have precisions on this problem. Let's say I have a table (EMP) with both a business rule triggered by an update (BR_EMP002_UPD) and a business rule triggered by a delete (BR_EMP001_DEL). The only code in those rules is a show_message to demonstrate execution.
Testcase 1 : open transaction, update a row, close transaction.
Result 1 : BR_EMP002_UPD is stacked AND executed
Testcase 2 : open transaction, delete a row, close transaction.
Result 2 : BR_EMP001_DEL is stacked AND executed
Testcase 3 : open transaction, update a row, delete that same row, close transaction.
Result 3 : both business rules are stacked but NO BUSINESS RULE IS EXECUTED!!!
Hopefully, testcase 3 is not a desired behavior. I could understand why BR_EMP002_UPD is not executed but BR_EMP001_DEL???
We can track down the code (see Serge's post below) that causes this but will we cause more problems by changing it?
Anybody have the same problems?
Is this forum still monitored by the (J)Headstart team?
Is CDM RuleFrame still supported by the Center of Excellence? I think that 23 days is a bit long for a problem such as ours. Is the product dead?
We feel we've hit a nasty bug in the RuleFrame engine and it would be nice if we couls get a confirmation as to why qms_transaction_mgt.perform_business_rule was changed to skip execution of certain rules.
I have a simple testcase available to reproduce the problem.