Fix bfs search

[galshubeli]

Summary

Brief description of the changes in this PR.

Type of Change

• Bug fix
• New feature
• Performance improvement
• Documentation/Tests

Objective

For new features and performance improvements: Clearly describe the objective and rationale for this change.

Testing

• Unit tests added/updated
• Integration tests added/updated
• All existing tests pass

Breaking Changes

• This PR contains breaking changes

If this is a breaking change, describe:

• What functionality is affected
• Migration path for existing users

Checklist

• Code follows project style guidelines (make lint passes)
• Self-review completed
• Documentation updated where necessary
• No secrets or sensitive information committed

Related Issues

Closes #[issue number]

---

Important

Fixes BFS search logic in search_utils.py to correctly handle Entity and Episodic nodes.

• Behavior:
  • Fixes BFS search logic in edge_bfs_search and node_bfs_search in search_utils.py.
  • Separates MATCH clause to handle Entity and Episodic nodes correctly.
  • Ensures correct identification of origin node type before BFS traversal.
• Misc:
  • Minor whitespace changes in node_db_queries.py.

^{This description was created by for dc03883. You can customize this summary. It will automatically update as commits are pushed.}

[ellipsis-dev]

Important

Looks good to me! 👍

Reviewed everything up to dc03883 in 1 minute and 26 seconds. Click for details.

• Reviewed 38 lines of code in 2 files
• Skipped 0 files when reviewing.
• Skipped posting 5 draft comments. View those below.
• Modify your settings and rules to customize what types of comments Ellipsis leaves. And don't forget to react with 👍 or 👎 to teach Ellipsis.

1. graphiti_core/models/nodes/node_db_queries.py:130

• Draft comment:
  Extra blank lines were added inside the triple-quoted query string. Remove them if not intentional to keep the query format clean.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 80% <= threshold 80% None

2. graphiti_core/search/search_utils.py:268

• Draft comment:
  Replaced inline label union in the MATCH clause with a WHERE clause check. Ensure that this change does not impact index usage on the uuid property—verify that nodes with either label (Entity or Episodic) still use the appropriate indexes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 80% <= threshold 80% None

3. graphiti_core/search/search_utils.py:412

• Draft comment:
  Similarly, the node BFS search now uses a WHERE clause for label filtering and additional group_id checks. Confirm that the conditions 'AND n.group_id = origin.group_id' and 'AND origin.group_id IN $group_ids' are correct and do not inadvertently filter out valid nodes.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Confidence changes required: 80% <= threshold 80% None

4. graphiti_core/models/nodes/node_db_queries.py:133

• Draft comment:
  Typographical issue: The closing triple quotes on line 133 contain a trailing space. Consider removing the extra space.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Decided after close inspection that this draft comment was likely wrong and/or not actionable: usefulness confidence = 10% vs. threshold = 80% While technically correct, trailing whitespace is a very minor issue that would typically be handled by code formatters or IDE settings. It doesn't affect functionality. The rules state not to make comments that are obvious or unimportant. This seems to fall into that category. The trailing whitespace could potentially cause issues with string comparison or be a sign of inconsistent code formatting practices that should be addressed. While string comparison could theoretically be affected, this is in a constant that's used for database queries where trailing whitespace would be trimmed. The formatting issue is better handled by automated tools than PR comments. This comment should be deleted as it addresses an extremely minor formatting issue that doesn't impact functionality and would be better handled by automated formatting tools.

5. graphiti_core/models/nodes/node_db_queries.py:134

• Draft comment:
  Observation: Extra blank lines following the closing docstring might be unintentional. Please verify if these additional newlines are required.
• Reason this comment was not posted:
  Comment did not seem useful. Confidence is useful = 0% <= threshold 80% The comment is asking the PR author to verify if the extra blank lines are intentional, which violates the rule against asking the author to confirm their intention. The comment does not provide a specific suggestion or improvement, nor does it address any of the additional rules such as ensuring code is idiomatic or DRY. Therefore, this comment should not be approved.

Workflow ID: wflow_bofmrOMPwjhO8TXO

^{You can customize by changing your verbosity settings, reacting with 👍 or 👎, replying to comments, or adding code review rules.}

[galshubeli]

fixes #815

[skele-aim]

Any updates here? @galshubeli