Indeed, that works. Maybe it's just me being a little dumb. Thanks!
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 12:15 PM, Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > Did you iterate your traversal? > > graph.tx().open(); g.addV().iterate(); graph.tx().commit(); > > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > > On May 21, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Dylan Millikin <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hey, > > > > This one is somewhat obvious but a little bit of a pain and worth > > discussing. > > I'm using the titan09 branch and gremlin-console M9-RC3 to test these > > (default configuration) > > > > Basically these two queries don't yield the same results: > > > > graph.tx().open(); graph.addVertex(); graph.tx().commit(); > > > > Which will behave as expected and add a vertex > > > > && > > > > graph.tx().open(); g.addV(); graph.tx().commit(); > > > > Doesn't add any vertex. I understand why, I'm just not sure this is > > comfortable behavior (or even wanted behavior). > > Furthermore the following doesn't work either: > > > > graph.tx().open(); m = graph.traversal(); m.addV(); graph.tx().commit(); > > > > So, as handy as addV() is, it's behavior is inconsistent and dependent on > > context. That query you wrote and that worked fine will suddenly stop > > working if it's called from within a transaction. (unit tests will pass > but > > integration tests will fail) > > > > Has this been discussed already? It looks like a potential headache. > >
