Method fromTriples(PlanTriplePatternSeq, String, SemStoreExpr, PlanTripleOptions) is ambiguous for the type PlanBuilder

[georgeajit]

For the following test code snippet, we are seeing the ambiguous error message.

public void testJoinInnerWithSemStore() throws KeyManagementException, NoSuchAlgorithmException, IOException,  SAXException, ParserConfigurationException
	{
		System.out.println("In testJoinInnerWithSemStore method");
		
		// Create a new Plan.
		RowManager rowMgr = client.newRowManager();
		PlanBuilder p = rowMgr.newPlanBuilder();
		PlanBuilder.Prefixer  bb = p.prefixer("http://marklogic.com/baseball/players");
		PlanBuilder.Prefixer tm = p.prefixer("http://marklogic.com/mlb/team/");

		PlanColumn playerAgeCol = p.col("player_age");
		PlanColumn playerIdCol = p.col("player_id");
		PlanColumn playerNameCol = p.col("player_name");
		PlanColumn playerTeamCol = p.col("player_team");

		PlanSystemColumn playerGraphCol = p.graphCol("graphUri");

		PlanColumn teamIdCol = p.col("player_team");
		PlanColumn teamNameCol = p.col("team_name");
		PlanColumn teamCityCol = p.col("team_city");
		
		PlanTriplePatternSeq patPlayerSeq = p.patterns(p.pattern(playerIdCol, bb.iri("age"), playerAgeCol, playerGraphCol),
				p.pattern(playerIdCol, bb.iri("name"), playerNameCol),
				p.pattern(playerIdCol, bb.iri("team"), playerTeamCol)
				);
		 
		ModifyPlan player_plan = p.fromTriples(patPlayerSeq, null, p.sem.store("/optic/player/triple/test", "/optic/team/triple/test"), 
				                               p.tripleOptions(PlanBuilder.PlanTriples.DEDUPLICATED));
		
		PlanTriplePatternSeq patTeamSeq = p.patterns(p.pattern(teamIdCol, tm.iri("name"), teamNameCol),
                                                     p.pattern(teamIdCol, tm.iri("city"), teamCityCol)
				                                    );	
		ModifyPlan team_plan = p.fromTriples(patTeamSeq,
                                             null,
                                             null,
                                             p.tripleOptions(PlanBuilder.PlanTriples.DEDUPLICATED)
                                             );
      
		ModifyPlan output = player_plan.joinInner(team_plan)
                                       .where(p.eq(teamNameCol, p.xs.string("Giants")))
                                       .orderBy(p.asc(playerAgeCol))
                                       .select(
                                               p.as("PlayerName", playerNameCol), 
                                               p.as("PlayerAge", playerAgeCol), 
                                               p.as("TeamName", p.fn.concat(teamCityCol, p.xs.string(" "), teamNameCol)),
                                               p.as("PlayerGraph", playerGraphCol));
		JacksonHandle jacksonHandle = new JacksonHandle();
		jacksonHandle.setMimetype("application/json");

		rowMgr.resultDoc(output, jacksonHandle);
		JsonNode jsonResults = jacksonHandle.get().path("rows");
		
		// Should have 3 nodes returned.		
		assertEquals("Three nodes not returned from testJoinInnerWithGraphIRI method ", 3, jsonResults.size());
		assertEquals("Row 1 PlayerName value incorrect", "Juan Leone", jsonResults.get(0).path("PlayerName").path("value").asText());
		assertEquals("Row 1 PlayerAge value incorrect", "27", jsonResults.get(0).path("PlayerAge").path("value").asText());
		assertEquals("Row 1 TeamName value incorrect", "San Francisco Giants", jsonResults.get(0).path("TeamName").path("value").asText());
		assertEquals("Row 1 GraphName value incorrect", "/optic/player/triple/test", jsonResults.get(0).path("GraphName").path("value").asText());  
	}

[ehennum]

The fix to #529 eliminated one overload on pattern(), which may have been the issue here.

Do you still see the issue after fetching that commit? If so, what is the specific error message?

[ehennum]

Does the reassign mean you still see an issue?

[ehennum]

Both fromTriples() calls need a cast on the first null (in this case, to String) to remove the ambiguity.

That said, we should do a usability review overloads with same arity for cases where a param with different types in the overloads will often be null. In such cases, we might want to reduce the arity.

Could you create a separate tasks for that usability review of overloads (so the issue is owned by QA)?