Andy Tolbert created TINKERPOP-1520:

             Summary: Difference between 'has' generated graphson2.0 in java 
and python glv implementation
                 Key: TINKERPOP-1520
             Project: TinkerPop
          Issue Type: Bug
            Reporter: Andy Tolbert

Noticed that between the java and python implementations, the graphson2.0 
payload generated for a {{has}} step is different.  i.e. for the given 

{{g.E().has("weight", 0.2)}}

The java implementation produces the following graphson:


where the python implementation produces the following:


In the java case, a {{g\:P}} typed (predicate) value is provided, where in the 
python case that isn't the case.

I'm assuming the java one is correct (primarily since the graph backend seems 
to like it and return the expected result).   Should GLV implementations behave 
this way?  I noticed that {{GraphTraversal#has(String propertyKey, Object 
value)}} in the java TinkerPop api wraps the value in a predicate ({{P.eq}}) 
under the covers 
 so maybe implementors will need to do the same ([python 

This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA

Reply via email to