The implicit key is "_id_" but that's an implementation detail and shouldn't
be used to assert correctness of the index in unit tests.
2011/10/8 Thibaut Colar <tco...@colar.net>
> Actually you are right, seems like "id" is the only one that fails ... i
> really thought that was implicitly created, could it be possible than
> somehow it should be but doesn't when using the transaction manager ?
>
> On 10/8/11 11:41 AM, Thibaut Colar wrote:
> > Right, id is an implicit field ... works when not in transaction.
> > If i remove that test, then I fail on the later index.get.
> >
> > As far as deleting the db, it's not in my test, but i removed the folder
> > in y real code and manually before running the test.
> >
> > On 10/8/11 11:10 AM, Rick Bullotta wrote:
> >> If I remember correctly, neo has an implicit field on each index, and
> the name is either "id" or "_id".
> >>
> >> On Oct 8, 2011, at 1:58 PM, "Chris Gioran"<
> chris.gio...@neotechnology.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Thibaut,
> >>>
> >>> I noticed the following snippet in your test case code:
> >>>
> >>> long id = node.getId();
> >>> node.setProperty("testProp", "test");
> >>> index.add(node, "testProp", "test");
> >>>
> >>> Assert.assertEquals(node.getProperty("testProp"), "test");
> >>>
> >>> // Lookup By id
> >>> Assert.assertNotNull(graphDb.getNodeById(id));
> >>>
> >>> // Now via Index
> >>> Node found = index.get("id", id).getSingle();
> >>> Assert.assertNotNull(found);
> >>> Assert.assertEquals(found.getId(), id);
> >>>
> >>> which leads to the first test failure with a null result returned.
> >>> Here you are indexing a node with key "testProp" and value "test" but
> >>> you go on to ask it from the index with key "id" and value its id.
> >>> Since you haven't added that key/value pair in the index, rightfully
> >>> you don't get any results - the test fails in my setup even with the
> >>> native Neo4j transaction manager.
> >>>
> >>> I changed that to ask the node from the index with the proper
> >>> key/value pair and the test passes - the same thing happens a bit
> >>> further down where you ask the index for a node with a key/value of
> >>> "testProp"/"prop" (instead of "testProp"/"test"). Moreover, it passes
> >>> with both the native Transaction Manager and the Atomikos
> >>> implementation.
> >>>
> >>> Also, you are not deleting the db for the test - this means that since
> >>> you add to the index nodes with the same key/value the test will pass
> >>> only on the first run as getSingle() on the index hits will find the
> >>> previously added nodes and it will fail.
> >>>
> >>> Could you try that out and see if it solves your issues?
> >>>
> >>> I am glad that this functionality is being used in production - please
> >>> provide any feedback on any problems and what you think of this
> >>> feature.
> >>>
> >>> hope that helps,
> >>> CG
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 7:50 PM, tcolar<tco...@colar.net> wrote:
> >>>> I've been trying to make this work for a few days but while it mostly
> works,
> >>>> the Lucene index just won't.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have a fairly complex setup including neo4j, mysql, mongo and JMS
> ad
> >>>> trying to do transactions accross all that with Atomikos.
> >>>>
> >>>> Since that is quite complex, I've made a smaller unit test just using
> >>>> Atomikos and Neo4j to demonstrate the issue:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://bitbucket.org/tcolar/stuff/src/ddd17191e9a4/AtomikosNeo4j
> >>>>
> >>>> The main test is here:
> >>>>
> https://bitbucket.org/tcolar/stuff/src/ddd17191e9a4/AtomikosNeo4j/src/test/java/net/colar/atomikosNeo4j/AtomikosNeo4jTest.java
> >>>>
> >>>> and results:
> >>>>
> https://bitbucket.org/tcolar/stuff/src/ddd17191e9a4/AtomikosNeo4j/test.log
> >>>>
> >>>> I used
> >>>>
> http://digitalstain.blogspot.com/2010/11/using-jotm-as-transactionmanager-in.html
> >>>> to get me going.
> >>>>
> >>>> And my code for that part is here:
> >>>>
> https://bitbucket.org/tcolar/stuff/src/ddd17191e9a4/AtomikosNeo4j/src/main/java/net/colar/atomikosNeo4j
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm thinking that's probably where I'm doing something wrong maybe ?
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm probably not doing something right but i can't seem to find what's
> going
> >>>> on with Lucene.
> >>>>
> >>>> The test works if not using Atomikos but just plain Neo4j
> Transactions.
> >>>>
> >>>> Anybody as an idea what is wrong?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks.
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> View this message in context:
> http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.nabble.com/Trying-to-use-Neo4J-with-Atomikos-transaction-manager-issues-with-Lucene-index-tp3400319p3400319.html
> >>>> Sent from the Neo4j Community Discussions mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Neo4j mailing list
> >>>> User@lists.neo4j.org
> >>>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Neo4j mailing list
> >>> User@lists.neo4j.org
> >>> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Neo4j mailing list
> >> User@lists.neo4j.org
> >> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
> > _______________________________________________
> > Neo4j mailing list
> > User@lists.neo4j.org
> > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>
> _______________________________________________
> Neo4j mailing list
> User@lists.neo4j.org
> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>
--
Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com]
Hacker, Neo Technology
www.neotechnology.com
_______________________________________________
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
