Question
LANIT JSC
RU
Last activity: 7 Apr 2017 23:40 EDT
System not able to find Function in one of the environments (com.pega.pegarules.pub.generator.UnresolvedAssemblyError , InvalidExpression, No candidates found)
On production system (PRPC 7.1.8) we have some problem:
"com.pega.pegarules.pub.PRAppRuntimeException: The flow SendToCreditDepartment had a problem on step Integrator2 of: com.pega.pegarules.pub.generator.UnresolvedAssemblyError: ** 2001449583§EscapeSpecSymbols§PegaEL-InvalidExpression No candidates found [possible function name, ruleset/version or number of parameter problem] for Rule-Utility-Function in ruleset list <null> expected since isEditing is false ruleset = ECM-FileNetComponent library = FileNetComponent functionName = EscapeSpecSymbols parameters = [ Item: param.PackageName Pega type = text Java data type = String] @(ECM-FileNetComponent:FileNetComponent).EscapeSpecSymbols(param.PackageName)
From: (B1208A77259A79BBE63E2E6FA8D46E96F) "
The error was cleared by performing a Revalidate and Save of the rule where the function was referenced.
Also, we were given an official response from Pegasystems, this is a bug in the engine, and they gave us a hotfix (HFix-25979) that we do not encounter this problem in the future.
This problem occurs accidentally and is uncertain.
Related links to this problem:
On production system (PRPC 7.1.8) we have some problem:
"com.pega.pegarules.pub.PRAppRuntimeException: The flow SendToCreditDepartment had a problem on step Integrator2 of: com.pega.pegarules.pub.generator.UnresolvedAssemblyError: ** 2001449583§EscapeSpecSymbols§PegaEL-InvalidExpression No candidates found [possible function name, ruleset/version or number of parameter problem] for Rule-Utility-Function in ruleset list <null> expected since isEditing is false ruleset = ECM-FileNetComponent library = FileNetComponent functionName = EscapeSpecSymbols parameters = [ Item: param.PackageName Pega type = text Java data type = String] @(ECM-FileNetComponent:FileNetComponent).EscapeSpecSymbols(param.PackageName)
From: (B1208A77259A79BBE63E2E6FA8D46E96F) "
The error was cleared by performing a Revalidate and Save of the rule where the function was referenced.
Also, we were given an official response from Pegasystems, this is a bug in the engine, and they gave us a hotfix (HFix-25979) that we do not encounter this problem in the future.
This problem occurs accidentally and is uncertain.
Related links to this problem:
- https://community.pega.com/support/support-articles/unable-find-function-after-upgrade-pega-718
- https://pdn.pega.com/forums/system-operations/system-not-able-find-function-one-environments
Met you are such a problem? What helped you solve it?
Accepted Solution
LANIT JSC
RU
Virtusa IT Consulting
AE
Hi Nikita,
I have got few questions hope you have the same to be answered.
-What was the root cause of this error?
-Since the issue was fixed by performing Revalidate and save on the rule, should you apply the 'HFix-25979' or not ?
To share my views on this, I don't know much of the root cause except for what is documented with your SR and in HFix history. However applying this HFix should fix this issue as the change applied with this HFix is addition of a try/catch block to handle the exception in the parent HFix, also the dependent HFix handles another bug reported in 7.1.8 related to 'Rule-Utility-Function not found'.
Since you are already in production, you can probably test this HFix-25979 in one of your lower environments and plan for installing this HFix on production at your down time or maintenance time.
Revalidate and save should suffice now since you are already in production.
Thanks,
Habeeb Baig
LANIT JSC
RU
Hello!
Habeeb Baig напиÑал(а):
Hi Nikita,
I have got few questions hope you have the same to be answered.
-What was the root cause of this error?
-Since the issue was fixed by performing Revalidate and save on the rule, should you apply the 'HFix-25979' or not ?
To share my views on this, I don't know much of the root cause except for what is documented with your SR and in HFix history. However applying this HFix should fix this issue as the change applied with this HFix is addition of a try/catch block to handle the exception in the parent HFix, also the dependent HFix handles another bug reported in 7.1.8 related to 'Rule-Utility-Function not found'.
Since you are already in production, you can probably test this HFix-25979 in one of your lower environments and plan for installing this HFix on production at your down time or maintenance time.
Revalidate and save should suffice now since you are already in production.
Thanks,
Habeeb Baig
"-What was the root cause of this error?"
Nothing unusual.
"-Since the issue was fixed by performing Revalidate and save on the rule, should you apply the 'HFix-25979' or not ?"
No. We did not install the hotfix. Revalidate and Save helped us without installing the hotfix.
Do I understand that this hotfix suppresses the exception, but does not solve the problem?
Hello!
Habeeb Baig напиÑал(а):
Hi Nikita,
I have got few questions hope you have the same to be answered.
-What was the root cause of this error?
-Since the issue was fixed by performing Revalidate and save on the rule, should you apply the 'HFix-25979' or not ?
To share my views on this, I don't know much of the root cause except for what is documented with your SR and in HFix history. However applying this HFix should fix this issue as the change applied with this HFix is addition of a try/catch block to handle the exception in the parent HFix, also the dependent HFix handles another bug reported in 7.1.8 related to 'Rule-Utility-Function not found'.
Since you are already in production, you can probably test this HFix-25979 in one of your lower environments and plan for installing this HFix on production at your down time or maintenance time.
Revalidate and save should suffice now since you are already in production.
Thanks,
Habeeb Baig
"-What was the root cause of this error?"
Nothing unusual.
"-Since the issue was fixed by performing Revalidate and save on the rule, should you apply the 'HFix-25979' or not ?"
No. We did not install the hotfix. Revalidate and Save helped us without installing the hotfix.
Do I understand that this hotfix suppresses the exception, but does not solve the problem?
The archive was 2 hotfix actually. HFIX-24383.JAR and HFIX-25979.JAR.
LANIT JSC
RU
I decompiled code that was sent to me in the hotfixes HFIX-25979 and saw one difference.
"
try {
method = javaClass.getMethod(functionName, paramTypes);
} catch (NoSuchMethodException var11) {
if(functionName.contains("--(")) {
int index = functionName.indexOf("--");
functionName = functionName.substring(0, index);
method = javaClass.getMethod(functionName, paramTypes);
}
}
"
As far as I understand it is generally weak due to the original problem.
The initial problem was similar to the error compile/caching rule -- system failure, incorrect behavior prpc engine.
Apparently they sent me hotfix that something is not right for my problem. Oh ... =(
Pegasystems Inc.
US
the hofix as you can see from code handles the case where function name has "--" in it, not sure that is your scenario. If not, then this might not help. Also check with the GCS engineer for your SR what kind of tests have been done for the fix. Asking questions if the use case is reproducible (I know it is not for your case) and later fixed with the hotfix or not.
Accepted Solution
LANIT JSC
RU
On request SR I was told that this error error caused by assembly caching problem. But at the same time the hotfix to help us to avoid similar error in the future, in other circumstances (where the Function name signatures not normalized correctly).
Try "Revalidate and Save" first!
Thanks!
HCL Technologies
CH
Even we have the same problem, and we had to Resave the entire activity from where the function is being called. All marker deletion, cache clean etc. did not help, but Resave of Activity. Which Hotfix is needed - any idea about the exact SR or HFID for this?
Amazon
IN
Thank you, this post helped me!
Sruthi
On request SR I was told that this error error caused by assembly caching problem. But at the same time the hotfix to help us to avoid similar error in the future, in other circumstances (where the Function name signatures not normalized correctly).
Try "Revalidate and Save" first!
Thanks!