fix: Preserve explicit label constraints when binding already-scoped node variables#702
Merged
Merged
Conversation
…oped node variables When a node variable is already in scope from a wildcard pattern (no labels), and a subsequent comma-separated pattern adds an explicit label constraint, the constraint was lost because addEntries() was a no-op (the explicit label was already in the all-tables set). The label rewriter then pruned away the constraint based on relationship type compatibility. Fix: replace entries instead of adding them when the existing node was created from a wildcard pattern (getOriginalLabels().empty()). This ensures that MATCH (n1), (n0:L3)<-[:T5]-(n1:L2) constrains n1 to L2 just like the equivalent MATCH (n0:L3)<-[:T5]-(n1:L2), (n1). Fixes #696.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
When a node variable is already in scope from a wildcard pattern (no labels), and a subsequent comma-separated pattern adds an explicit label constraint, the constraint was lost because addEntries() was a no-op (the explicit label was already in the all-tables set). The label rewriter then pruned away the constraint based on relationship type compatibility.
Fix: replace entries instead of adding them when the existing node was created from a wildcard pattern (getOriginalLabels().empty()). This ensures that MATCH (n1), (n0:L3)<-[:T5]-(n1:L2) constrains n1 to L2 just like the equivalent MATCH (n0:L3)<-[:T5]-(n1:L2), (n1).
Fixes #696.