[GitHub] [tinkerpop] dkuppitz edited a comment on issue #1224: TINKERPOP-1733 Support g.E().properties().hasKey('xx') & hasValue('xx')

[GitBox <gi...@apache.org>]

dkuppitz edited a comment on issue #1224: TINKERPOP-1733 Support g.E().properties().hasKey('xx') & hasValue('xx')
URL: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/1224#issuecomment-559866968
 
 
   @spmallette From the old PR:
   
   > I assume you like where this PR is going. if we make `hasKey()` behave uniformly for `Element` and `Property` where does that leave `has(String)`:
   > 
   > ```
   > gremlin> g.V(1).properties().has('name')
   > gremlin> g.V(1).properties().hasKey('name')
   > ==>vp[name->marko]
   > ```
   > 
   > Should it be deprecated in favor of `hasKey()` or Is there a reason to keep that signature?
   
   What you show is the expected result, checking for a property existence is different from checking if the key of a keyed element matches a given value. Thus I don't think we can remove/deprecate `has(String)`.
   
   ```
   gremlin> g.V().has("location")
   ==>v[1]
   ==>v[7]
   ==>v[8]
   ==>v[9]
   gremlin> g.V().properties().hasKey("location").limit(4)
   ==>vp[location->san diego]
   ==>vp[location->santa cruz]
   ==>vp[location->brussels]
   ==>vp[location->santa fe]
   gremlin> g.V().properties().hasKey("location").not(has("endTime"))
   ==>vp[location->santa fe]
   ==>vp[location->purcellville]
   ==>vp[location->seattle]
   ==>vp[location->aachen]
   ```

----------------------------------------------------------------
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
 
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
users@infra.apache.org


With regards,
Apache Git Services