Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/838
If I run `mvn clean test` I also get heaps of compilation errors, but
that's the same with master for me. E.g.
```
[ERROR] symbol: class JsonGenerator
[ERROR] location: class
Github user mpollmeier closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/715
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/715
superseded by https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/838
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/838#discussion_r181282042
--- Diff:
gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/process/traversal/dsl/graph/GraphTraversal.java
---
@@ -496,6 +497,19
Github user mpollmeier commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/838#discussion_r181282267
--- Diff:
gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/process/traversal/step/branch/RepeatStep.java
---
@@ -273,11 +314,37 @@ public
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/715
@krlohnes thanks for jumping in! This is still an open issue for me, so
I'll test your suggestion as soon as I find some time. Let me know how your
testing goes, maybe we can get this one over
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/745
ok that's done. added a changelog entry, merged this branch into tp32 and
merged tp32 into master.
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/745
Instead of marking them as final I simply dropped the assignment.
Re tp32: yes, I also mentioned this in the description of the ticket. I've
just squashed all commits and rebased onto tp32
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/745
I made the same incorrect assumption. Fixed with your latest snippet and
tested with our large testbase. No NPEs, no race conditions so far, looks good.
VOTE +1
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/745
Agreed, that's a better solution @robertdale. Note that `putIfAbsent` is
not generally thread safe, but since we use `ConcurrentHashMap` it should be.
I'll amend the commit.
---
GitHub user mpollmeier opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/745
TINKERPOP-1830: fix race condition in TinkerIndex
My colleage @fabsx00 discovered a race condition in tinkergraph's index
creation. He fixed it by simply replacing `parallelStream
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
Thanks @spmallette. I already voted +1 above. Made those changes, merged
(--no-ff) to tp32 and then merged tp32 to master (again --no-ff).
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on a diff in the pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705#discussion_r139550718
--- Diff: docs/src/upgrade/release-3.2.x-incubating.asciidoc ---
@@ -88,6 +88,11 @@ to the list of locally computed clauses.
See
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
@spmallette addressed your comments.
VOTE +1
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/715
`emit` modifies the behaviour of the repeat traversal, and I am unsure why
that is. Let me explain what I know and hopefully you or someone else can fill
the blanks.
Let's take my
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/715
That's likely because of the RepeatUnrollStrategy, which kicks in when
there's a foreseeable number of iterations. Needs to be changed as well I
guess.
-Original Message
GitHub user mpollmeier opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/715
change behaviour of repeat step to be depth first search (DFS)
OLTP traversals are normally DFS unless there is you use a barrier
step. This wasn't the case for `repeat` though
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
hmm, since I introduced a dependency from gremlin-core:test to
tinkergraph-gremlin the build complains about a cyclic dependency. I thought
that would have been fine, given that it's just
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
Ok gents, next iteration is ready for review:
* addressed stephen's comments, rebased and changed target to tp32
* moved the impl to GraphHelper which lives next to ElementHelper
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
there we go @spmallette @robertdale
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
Nice! And it does preserve the IDs as well. I'll update the PR. Thanks
@spmallette
---
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
That's very true. I just experimented with deep clones and it doesn't look
straightforward
* kryo can do it directly, but all referenced classes need a
no-arg-constructor, and since
GitHub user mpollmeier opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/705
make TinkerGraph cloneable
most people use tinkergraph for testing, and if there are traversals that
manipulate the graph, it's useful to be able to clone it up front, especially
for larger
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/606
Thanks Marko!
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/615
VOTE +1
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/606
In theory, yes. But it seems to behave fine as it is. Here's a scenario for
the gremlin-groovy shell:
```
g = TinkerGraph.open()
v0 = g.addVertex("x", 1)
v1 = g
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/606
I spoke to @ml86 (we are colleagues) and we think that this error doesn't
actually change the functionality. It only leads to computational overhead. But
that makes it hard to write a test
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/604
VOTE +1
related: https://github.com/mpollmeier/gremlin-scala/issues/203
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user mpollmeier closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
this was merged to tp32 and master and should have been closed
automatically here, for some reason the sync-script didn't capture that.
closing manually.
---
If your project is set up
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
@spmallette I don't have write access to this repository, can you either
grant them to me or merge for me?
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
@robertdale thanks for checking. Must have happened during rebase. Here
they are again.
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
@spmallette I'm also surprised, but not a docker expert. I'm happy to try
out other stuff to get to the bottom of that problem, just let me know if you
have some idea.
@robertdale Re
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
@robertdale I haven't run the tinkerpop docker before, so it did a fresh
download of all the docker images
@dkuppitz the docker daemon runs as root, if I read the output here
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
```
docker --version
Docker version 17.03.0-ce, build 60ccb2265b
```
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well
Github user mpollmeier commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
Interesting, yes I just did that and it did generate more docs, but not the
reference documentation. I can't find it at least - where is it supposed to end
up?
The end of the console
GitHub user mpollmeier opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/589
provide examples where merge operator actually has an impact
see
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/gremlin-users/CD3873E8-F202-4717-92E4-700D6CA80603%40gmail.com
I wasn't able
37 matches
Mail list logo
