Hi Pieter,
that's a nasty bug. I just verified that it's also a bug in master/:
gremlin> graph = TinkerGraph.open()
==>tinkergraph[vertices:0 edges:0]
gremlin> a = graph.addVertex(label, "A")
==>v[0]
gremlin> b = graph.addVertex(label, "B")
==>v[1]
gremlin> graph.traversal().V().hasId(a.id()).hasId(b.id())
==>v[0]
==>v[1]
gremlin> graph.traversal().V().hasId(a.id()).hasId(b.id()).explain()
==>Traversal Explanation
==========================================================================================
Original Traversal [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
ConnectiveStrategy [D] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
MatchPredicateStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
FilterRankingStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
InlineFilterStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
IncidentToAdjacentStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
AdjacentToIncidentStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
RepeatUnrollStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
CountStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
PathRetractionStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
LazyBarrierStrategy [O] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
TinkerGraphCountStrategy [P] [GraphStep(vertex,[]),
HasStep([~id.eq(0), ~id.eq(1)])]
TinkerGraphStepStrategy [P] [TinkerGraphStep(vertex,[0, 1])]
ProfileStrategy [F] [TinkerGraphStep(vertex,[0, 1])]
StandardVerificationStrategy [V] [TinkerGraphStep(vertex,[0, 1])]
Final Traversal [TinkerGraphStep(vertex,[0, 1])]
gremlin> Gremlin.version()
==>3.3.0-SNAPSHOT
Can you create a ticket?
Cheers,
Daniel
On Sun, May 28, 2017 at 10:45 AM, pieter gmail <pieter.mar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The following code illustrates my concern/confusion.
>
> @Test
> public void testHasId() {
> final TinkerGraph graph = TinkerGraph.open();
> Vertex a = graph.addVertex(T.label, "A");
> Vertex b = graph.addVertex(T.label, "B");
>
> List<Vertex> vertices = graph.traversal().V().hasId(a.id()).hasId(
> b.id()).toList();
> Assert.assertTrue(vertices.isEmpty());
> }
>
> The test fails as the both vertices are returned.
> Is this expected, I expected 'and' not 'or' behavior.
>
> Similar to,
>
> @Test
> public void testHasLabel() {
> final TinkerGraph graph = TinkerGraph.open();
> Vertex a = graph.addVertex(T.label, "A");
> Vertex b = graph.addVertex(T.label, "B");
>
> List<Vertex> vertices = graph.traversal().V().hasLabel
> ("A").hasLabel("B").toList();
> Assert.assertTrue(vertices.isEmpty());
> }
>
> This one passes.
>
> I checked the docs,
>
> |hasLabel(labels...)|: Remove the traverser if its element does not have
> any of the labels.
> |hasId(ids...)|: Remove the traverser if its element does not have any of
> the ids.
>
> Seems they should behave the same?
>
> I am working on version 3.2.4
>
> Thanks
> Pieter
>
>
