[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1520?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15677341#comment-15677341
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1520:
-------------------------------------------
Github user spmallette commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/499#discussion_r88709124
--- Diff:
gremlin-core/src/test/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/process/traversal/dsl/graph/GraphTraversalTest.java
---
@@ -71,4 +80,89 @@ public void
graphTraversalShouldHaveMethodsOfAnonymousGraphTraversal() {
}
}
}
+
+ @Test
+ public void graphTraversalMethodsShouldGenerateCorrespondingBytecode()
throws Exception {
+ final Random random = new Random();
--- End diff --
Ok - I have a body of tests that are kinda like this. I add this:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-server/src/test/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/server/GremlinServerIntegrateTest.java#L375-L379
so that they only run when `-DassertNonDeterministic` is added to the `mvn
clean install`. This should probably be one of those tests.
> 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)
