[jira] [Created] (TINKERPOP-1520) Difference between 'has' generated graphson2.0 in java and python glv implementation

["Andy Tolbert (JIRA)" <ji...@apache.org>]

Andy Tolbert created TINKERPOP-1520:
---------------------------------------

             Summary: Difference between 'has' generated graphson2.0 in java and python glv implementation
                 Key: TINKERPOP-1520
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1520
             Project: TinkerPop
          Issue Type: Bug
            Reporter: Andy Tolbert


Noticed that between the java and python implementations, the graphson2.0 payload generated for a {{has}} step is different.  i.e. for the given traversal:

{{g.E().has("weight", 0.2)}}

The java implementation produces the following graphson:

{code:javascript}
{"@type":"g:Bytecode","@value":{"step":[["E"],["has","weight",{"@type":"g:P","@value":{"predicate":"eq","value":{"@type":"g:Double","@value":0.2}}}]]}}
{code}

where the python implementation produces the following:

{code:javascript}
 {"@type":"g:Bytecode","@value":{"step":[["E"],["has","weight",0.2]]}}
{code}

In the java case, a {{g\:P}} typed (predicate) value is provided, where in the python case that isn't the case.

I'm assuming the java one is correct (primarily since the graph backend seems to like it and return the expected result).   Should GLV implementations behave this way?  I noticed that {{GraphTraversal#has(String propertyKey, Object value)}} in the java TinkerPop api wraps the value in a predicate ({{P.eq}}) under the covers ([link|https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/process/traversal/dsl/graph/GraphTraversal.java#L922]) so maybe implementors will need to do the same ([python link|https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-python/src/main/jython/gremlin_python/process/graph_traversal.py#L193])?



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)