On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Nigel Small <ni...@nigelsmall.net> wrote:
> Hi chaps

> I've hit a small feature in REST batch submissions which I can't find a way
> around. REST batches obviously allow references to items created within the
> same batch so that payloads like the following can create a pair of nodes
> with a relationship between them:

> [
>   { "id": 0, "method": "POST", "to": "/node",
>     "body": {"name": "Alice"}
>   },
>   { "id": 1, "method": "POST", "to": "/node",
>     "body": {"name": "Bob"}
>   },
>   { "id": 2, "method": "POST", "to": "{0}/relationships",
>     "body": {"type": "KNOWS", "to": "{1}", "data": {"since" : "1999"}}
>   }
> ]

> This is fine until I want the nodes to be uniquely indexed. I then try this
> instead...

> [
>   { "id": 0, "method": "POST", "to": "/index/node/People?unique",
>     "body": {"key": "name", "value": "Alice", "properties": {"name":
> "Alice"}}
>   },
>   { "id": 1, "method": "POST", "to": "/index/node/People?unique",
>     "body": {"key": "name", "value": "Bob", "properties": {"name": "Bob"}}
>   },
>   { "id": 2, "method": "POST", "to": "{0}/relationships",
>     "body": {"type": "KNOWS", "to": "{1}", "data": {"since" : "1999"}}
>   }
> ]

> ...and receive a BatchOperationFailedException with an empty message. I have
> tested the node creation jobs (ids 0 and 1) from this on their own and they
> work fine. This indicates that the issue is with the relationship creation.
> I'm guessing that the substitutions {0} and {1} are substituting the
> "indexed" URI instead of the "self" URI for each of the nodes and so the
> URIs generated behind the scenes are invalid. Not sure though, something
> else may be going on...

> Incidentally, I'm using curl for these tests to make sure the problem isn't
> client side. I've also run against the latest milestone and snapshot builds
> with similar results.

> Help appreciated... I'm kinda stuck with this one :-/

> Cheers
> Nige

> --

> peter,

> shouldn't you always return the node uri?  what is the pros/cons of each?
> don't all batch commands need to reference the node not the index?

>  --

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Nigel Small <ni...@nigelsmall.net> wrote:
> My instinct is that it should carry on returning the indexed URI as
> currently, not least because it would break existing code if changed, but
> also the "indexed" URI is the only way to perform an index entry removal.
> One way around it might be to allow the indexed URI to be used as an alias
> for the node URI (for certain operations only maybe?) This way you could
> have:

> /index/node/People/name/Alice/1/relationships

> as an alias for

> /index/node/1/relationships

> and that way all corresponding operations would be mapped.

> WDYT? Not 100% sure about this one myself....
> Nige

> On 18 October 2012 16:17, kantube <mich...@mkanner.com> wrote:

>> peter,

>> shouldn't you always return the node uri?  what is the pros/cons of each?
>> don't all batch commands need to reference the node not the index?

>> --

> --