Bump. Can anyone else reproduce this?
On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 9:22:03 PM UTC-5, BtySgtMajor wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm experiencing a weird issue with SDN 3.2.1.
>
> The project is pretty basic, as are the models.
>
> I have, for example, three models, each of which are derived from a
> super class that's annotated with @NodeEntity and has a @GraphId.
>
> Let's say these models represent a Franchise, a Company and a Store.
> Amongst other properties, a Company can have many Stores (as can a
> Franchise), and a Store can only have one Company or Franchise, so you have
> something like this:
>
> public class Company {
> @RelatedTo(type="HAS_STORE", direction=Direction.OUTGOING,
> enforceTargetType=true)
> private Set<Store> stores;
> ...
> }
>
> and
>
> public class Franchise{
> @RelatedTo(type="HAS_STORE", direction=Direction.OUTGOING,
> enforceTargetType=true)
> private Set<Store> stores;
> ...
> }
>
>
>
>
> and
>
> public class Store {
> @RelatedTo(type="HAS_STORE", direction=Direction.INCOMING,
> enforceTargetType=true)
> private Franchise;
>
> @RelatedTo(type="HAS_STORE", direction=Direction.INCOMING,
> enforceTargetType=true)
> private Company;
> ...
> }
>
>
> I also have a repository defined thusly:
>
> public interface StoreRepository extends GraphRepository<Store>,
> RelationshipOperationsRepository<Store> {
> ...
> }
>
>
> Now, in a test case, when I try to do something like this:
>
> Company company = new Company();
> Store store = new Store();
> store.setCompany(company);
> ...
> storeRepository.save(store);
>
> ...I get an inconsistent result in that the relationship between Store
> and Company isn't always created (I'd say it's a 50/50 shot). All of my
> other properties (including other relationships and collections) that I set
> on the store persist just fine every time.
>
> However, if I *rename* one of the relationships (say, the Franchise one
> to "FRANCHISE_HAS_STORE"), the issue goes away. I was under the impression
> that the "enforceTargetType" argument in @RelatedTo was supposed to
> eliminate the need to rename the relationship types.
>
> Admittedly I haven't used SDN much in the last several months, so,
> please forgive me if I'm missing something.
>
> Anyone have any insight?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Neo4j" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
