stephen mallette updated TINKERPOP-1520:
    Component/s: language-variant

> Difference between 'has' step 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
>          Components: language-variant
>    Affects Versions: 3.2.3
>            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

Reply via email to