contrueCT opened a new issue, #2995:
URL: https://github.com/apache/hugegraph/issues/2995
### Feature Description (功能描述)
## Background
PR #2993 introduced `HugeCountStrategy` to fix the negative-bound
optimization issues behind #2930, #2931, and #2932.
That fix was implemented by forking an older version of TinkerPop's
`CountStrategy` and adding HugeGraph-specific guards for negative bounds.
However, the current local fork does not yet include the upstream follow-up
fix for `ConnectiveStep` / `and()` / `or()` handling from `TINKERPOP-2911`.
As a result, HugeGraph is now aligned for the negative-bound cases fixed in
#2993, but it may still inherit older `CountStrategy` behavior for some
connective-filter patterns.
## Follow-up Scope
Port the upstream `TINKERPOP-2911` changes for `ConnectiveStep` into
`HugeCountStrategy`, and add regression coverage for connective traversal
shapes.
Suggested regression cases include:
- `__.and(__.out().count().is(0), __.in().count().is(0))`
- `__.or(__.out().count().is(0), __.in().count().is(0))`
- `__.where(__.or(__.out("none").out().count().is(0), __.has("none")))`
- `__.where(__.or(__.out("none").out().count().is(0),
__.has("none").count().is(0)))`
## Expected Result
- `HugeCountStrategy` should behave consistently with the upstream
`CountStrategy` fixes around `ConnectiveStep`
- connective `and()/or()` traversal shapes should no longer rely on older
inherited behavior from the forked strategy
- regression tests should cover the above traversal forms and protect
against future drift
I’d be happy to follow up on this as a separate improvement issue and work
on a later refinement PR.
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
