Andy Tolbert created TINKERPOP-1520:
---------------------------------------
Summary: Difference between 'has' generated graphson2.0 in java
and python glv implementation
Key: TINKERPOP-1520
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/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
traversal:
{{g.E().has("weight", 0.2)}}
The java implementation produces the following graphson:
{code:javascript}
{"@type":"g:Bytecode","@value":{"step":[["E"],["has","weight",{"@type":"g:P","@value":{"predicate":"eq","value":{"@type":"g:Double","@value":0.2}}}]]}}
{code}
where the python implementation produces the following:
{code:javascript}
{"@type":"g:Bytecode","@value":{"step":[["E"],["has","weight",0.2]]}}
{code}
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
([link|https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/process/traversal/dsl/graph/GraphTraversal.java#L922])
so maybe implementors will need to do the same ([python
link|https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-python/src/main/jython/gremlin_python/process/graph_traversal.py#L193])?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
