-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 232
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Multiple label relation traversal #534
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Multiple label relation traversal #534
Conversation
I am not sure why the build failed for python 3.5, the log reads:
The error seems to be inside the The same error is present in a run ten days ago. Therefore I think this might not be a problem with my PR but rather an error on another end? |
Hello - thank you for your contribution. We are working on updating this repo and reviewing PRs but, to set expectations, maintenance is moving at a slow pace. |
Hey @whatSocks, thanks for the update! If you don't mind, I'd be interested in helping out the team. Is there a process to apply as a collaborator? |
@AntonLydike hi Anton, the repo has been updated since Jan - can you rebase and check on the failing tests? |
Marking this as "Review to be done", since the feature looked approved by the team, and just lacked some actions (rebase, fix tests). |
@AntonLydike Any chance you could review this so that we can decide if it can be added to an upcoming release? |
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed! 0 Bugs No Coverage information |
As per #533 I added support for multiple relation labels in relationship traversal. It's used like this:
I had to add support for
DISTINCT
modifiers to return statements. I am not sure, how this would be done best. I tried to modify the_ast['return']
field, but this was used in a lot of places and broke a few things. I then introduced a new field_ast['return_mod']
which is then added to the query like this:Furthermore we need to consider it's impact in the
_count
,_contains
and_execute
methods:_contains
just introduces a new constraint that matches a single item, the distinct modifier does not make any difference here._execute
wraps the_ast['return']
in anid()
call. If we want unique results, we keep the modifier_count
requires the most rework. Here we need to pull the modifier into thecount()
call.I believe I cover all this in the test I wrote, but a critical eye would be highly appreciated (it's the first python unit test for me)