[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1520?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15678370#comment-15678370
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1520:
-------------------------------------------
Github user newkek commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/499#discussion_r88769301
--- Diff:
gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/structure/io/graphson/GraphSONSerializersV2d0.java
---
@@ -175,8 +177,30 @@ public PropertyJacksonSerializer() {
public void serialize(final Property property, final JsonGenerator
jsonGenerator, final SerializerProvider serializerProvider)
throws IOException {
jsonGenerator.writeStartObject();
- jsonGenerator.writeObjectField(GraphSONTokens.KEY,
property.key());
+ jsonGenerator.writeStringField(GraphSONTokens.KEY,
property.key());
jsonGenerator.writeObjectField(GraphSONTokens.VALUE,
property.value());
+ if (property.element() instanceof VertexProperty) {
+ VertexProperty vertexProperty = (VertexProperty)
property.element();
+
jsonGenerator.writeObjectFieldStart(GraphSONTokens.ELEMENT);
+ jsonGenerator.writeStringField(GraphSONTokens.VALUETYPE,
"g:VertexProperty");
--- End diff --
It isn't great to bypass the typing system.. As the type system is dynamic,
hardcoding the type can lead to inconsistent types if users overrides the
Gremlin standard serializers and types as it is currently possible. But I see
why we can't just jsonGenerator.writeObjectField(GraphSONTokens.ELEMENT,
property.element()), because that would, well, re-write VertexProperty's
properties and so on. We can maybe introduce a "g:Element" type? Or maybe just
write a simple Map here where the deserializers are aware of what to do with a
"element" field? wdyt?
> 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)
