[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1925?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Stephen Mallette reassigned TINKERPOP-1925:
-------------------------------------------
Assignee: Stephen Mallette (was: Ted Wilmes)
> Don't apply PathRetractionStrategy recursively
> ----------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP-1925
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1925
> Project: TinkerPop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: process
> Affects Versions: 3.2.7
> Reporter: Daniel Kuppitz
> Assignee: Stephen Mallette
> Priority: Major
>
> {{PathRetractionStrategy}} should not be applied recursively, if possible.
> This is considered an anti-pattern and just recently it caused a lot of
> trouble. This commit fixed the recent issue:
> https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/commit/b8eb8a02f1675a1b22b86ccc54d22453c65f406f
> {{PathRetractionStrategy}} collects requirements of child traversals, before
> other strategies have a chance to mutate them. When other strategies get to
> the child traversals, mutate them and thus add or remove requirements, a few
> things can go crazy, especially because traverser requirements get cached
> when they're first requested.
> Since I do not fully understand the {{PathRetractionStrategy}} code, my fix
> was actually a workaround. As you can see in the commit linked above, I
> implemented the same anti-pattern in {{SubgraphStrategy}} and
> {{IncidentToAdjacentStrategy}}; these are the 2 strategies that can
> potentially change the traverser requirements.
> It would be nice to revert these changes and instead make
> {{PathRetractionStrategy}} work like all others. However, I'm not sure if
> that's even possible.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
