Hi Jan,
It seems that this is the exact same answer to an other issue I reported,
but I don't think the issues are related.
Thanks,
Thomas
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 8:57:13 PM UTC+8, Jan wrote:
>
> Hi Thomas,
>
> I used your code to reproduce the issue and it's partly related.
> The problem in this case is not that there are immutable objects, but that
> the call to `byExample(...).count()` returns an unexpected value.
>
> var fromCount1 = db.foxxdebug.byExample({ _from: from, request: false }).
> count();
>
> The `byExample()` returns an object of type `SimpleQueryByExample`, and
> when calling `toArray()` on this, the results are correct, before and after
> the update.
> However, when calling `count()` on that object, this will also correctly
> execute the simple query, but sometimes returns a wrong result for `count`.
> The reason for this is that internally the result is produced by an index
> lookup and then may need to be post-filtered in order to return only those
> documents that match all conditions. In this case, the byExample will use
> the edge index on `_from` and then post-filter the result using the
> `request == false` condition. The result of post-filtering is also correct,
> however, the `count` value of the query is not adjusted. `count` in this
> case will return the number of documents before post-filtering.
>
> In your case the number of documents with the queried `_from` and `_to`
> values don't change due to the replace, so the `count` values before and
> after the replace are identical. Clearly it's a bug that the count value is
> wrong, and I just fixed it in the 2.8 branch. I checked that it's already
> working fine in 3.0, and 2.8 is the last affected version.
>
> By the way, the workaround to prevent the issue from occurring is to not
> use `byExample(...).count()` but instead use
> `byExample(...).toArray().length`.
> We plan to build a new 2.8 release this week end.
>
> Best regards
> Jan
>
> Am Freitag, 24. Juni 2016 15:11:53 UTC+2 schrieb Thomas Weiss:
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> I was debugging a different topic in my Foxx app and decided to give the
>> 'allowImplicit' flag a try (to make sure that all the collections I read in
>> my transactions were declared). But I found that, even if all collections
>> are declared, adding this flag would raise an error. Here is a simple
>> example to reproduce that (tested on 2.8.7):
>>
>> controller.post('/foxxdebug', function (req, res) {
>> var from = 'foxxdebug/123';
>> var to = 'foxxdebug/456';
>> db._executeTransaction({
>> collections: {
>> read: ['foxxdebug'],
>> write: ['foxxdebug'],
>> allowImplicit: false
>> },
>> action: function () {
>> db.foxxdebug.insert(from, to, {});
>> var fromCount = db.foxxdebug.byExample({ _from: from }).count
>> ();
>> var toCount = db.foxxdebug.byExample({ _to: to }).count();
>> res.json({ fromCount: fromCount, toCount: toCount });
>> }
>> });
>> });
>>
>> Note that the 'foxxdebug' was created, but this call would always fail
>> with the 'unregistered collection used in transaction' error!
>>
>> Thomas
>>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"ArangoDB" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
