[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1520?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15677320#comment-15677320
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1520:
-------------------------------------------
Github user okram commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/499#discussion_r88707852
--- Diff: CHANGELOG.asciidoc ---
@@ -26,6 +26,12 @@
image::https://raw.githubusercontent.com/apache/tinkerpop/master/docs/static/ima
TinkerPop 3.2.4 (Release Date: NOT OFFICIALLY RELEASED YET)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
+* Added "attachment requisite" `VertexProperty.element()` and
`Property.element()` data in GraphSON serialization.
+* Added `Vertex`, `Edge`, `VertexProperty`, and `Property` serializers to
Gremlin-Python and exposed tests that use graph object arguments.
+* `Bytecode.getSourceInstructions()` and `Bytecode.getStepInstructions()`
now returns `List<Instruction>` instead of `Iterable<Instruction>`.
+* Added various `TraversalStrategy` registrations with `GryoMapper`.
+* Fixed a naming mistake in Gremlin-Python: `IdentityRemoveStrategy` is
now called `IdentityRemovalStrategy`. (*breaking*)
--- End diff --
If you don't like it, lets not do it. I can remove the "breaking" tag in
the CHANGELOG on merge.
> 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
(v6.3.4#6332)
