-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 48
fix: support new HugeGraph edge id format #349
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
Open
hutiefang76
wants to merge
7
commits into
apache:master
Choose a base branch
from
hutiefang76:codex/fix-hugegraph-edge-id-format
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
7 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
27b727a
fix: support new HugeGraph edge id format
hutiefang 91a04d9
fix: align edge id coverage with current HugeGraph
hutiefang 252ea40
fix: parse legacy edge names from edge ids
hutiefang b84879d
fix: tolerate current edge label schema fields
hutiefang bc84f0a
test: cover edge name fallback paths
hutiefang 7fa84bd
fix: align edge compatibility with client invariants
hutiefang 5c792eb
fix: avoid dropping current edge label fields
hutiefang File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
❗️ High priority: please align this parser with the java-client edge-id invariant instead of hardcoding each length/index pair.
Context
parts[2].Edge.name()asidParts[idParts.length - 2]after validating the part count.Risk
The current implementation encodes the same rule as
4 -> parts[2],5 -> parts[3], and6 -> parts[4]. That works for these examples, but it re-implements java-client parsing in a more fragile form and makes future format/client upgrades easier to drift.Suggestion
Keep the compatibility range explicit, but extract through the shared invariant:
Please also add a 4-part regression test beside the new 5/6-part tests, since this method explicitly preserves HugeGraph 1.3 compatibility but the current coverage only locks the new formats.