[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1048?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16369435#comment-16369435
]
Daniel Kuppitz commented on TINKERPOP-1048:
-------------------------------------------
We can make it so that {{within}} and {{without}} also use {{NumberHelper}},
but this wouldn't work without a performance penalty. However, I don't think
providers would be affected by this, as most of them should have their own way
for internal id lookups anyway.
Thoughts?
> Vertex lookups by id are inconsistent
> -------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP-1048
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1048
> Project: TinkerPop
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: tinkergraph
> Affects Versions: 3.1.1-incubating
> Reporter: Daniel Kuppitz
> Assignee: stephen mallette
> Priority: Major
>
> {{graph.vertices(id)}}, {{g.V(id)}} and {{g.V().hasId(id)}} should all return
> the same result. However, currently only the latter respects the
> {{toString()}} representation of ids.
> {noformat}
> gremlin> g.addV().id()
> ==>12
> gremlin> graph.vertices("12")
> gremlin> g.V("12")
> gremlin> g.V().hasId("12")
> ==>v[12]
> {noformat}
> Inconsistent number comparison with Contains:
> {noformat}
> gremlin> conf = new BaseConfiguration()
> ==>org.apache.commons.configuration.BaseConfiguration@7048535f
> gremlin> conf.setProperty("gremlin.tinkergraph.vertexIdManager","LONG")
> ==>null
> gremlin> conf.setProperty("gremlin.tinkergraph.edgeIdManager","LONG")
> ==>null
> gremlin> graph = TinkerGraph.open(conf)
> ==>tinkergraph[vertices:0 edges:0]
> gremlin> graph.io(gryo()).readGraph('data/tinkerpop-modern.kryo')
> ==>null
> gremlin> g = graph.traversal()
> ==>graphtraversalsource[tinkergraph[vertices:6 edges:6], standard]
> gremlin> g.V().hasId(within(1..6)).out().hasId(within(1..6))
> gremlin> g.V().hasId(within(1..6)).out().hasId(between(0,7))
> ==>v[3]
> ==>v[2]
> ==>v[4]
> ==>v[5]
> ==>v[3]
> ==>v[3]
> {noformat}
> `P.within` and `P.without` rely on `Collection.contains()` which ends up
> doing an Object type comparison during the equality check.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
