I guess there wouldn't be a problem with that, though having it the way it
works now was a nice check to ensure that the ScriptEngine was configured
properly. I guess that shouldn't be the focus on this body of tests though.
We should be more concerned that the elements of the Gremlin language
actually work.
On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I see that for most languages using bytecode to native language translator
> would be the easiest solution. In the case of the JavaScript GLV, it would
> be fairly straightforward to implement (and I plan to do so!).
> In the case of C#, being more strict regarding typing than java, it would
> be an incomplete solution. For example:
>
> Consider the following traversal in Java: g.V().values("age")
> The type parameter for values() method is inferred at runtime and things
> "just works" thanks to type erasure.
>
> In the case of C#, it should be written as g.V().Values<int>("age") , with
> the type parameter to specify which type of traverser are you expecting at
> a compile time.
>
> That's why it wont be possible to make a generic translator from bytecode
> to C# code, without understanding which generic types are expected.
>
> In the case of C#, I was going for a translator on the C# side that
> tokenizes the gremlin traversal. Once the traversal is tokenized, in the
> moment of invoking the methods (with reflection), it can be made aware of
> the modern graph data (with datatypes!), ie: For method Values<>(), if the
> property key is "age" -> use int as generic type parameter.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:12 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I can't help thinking that perhaps non-JVM languages need to leverage
> > bytecode to make traversal building easier. We already have an
> established
> > pattern for converting bytecode into Traversals and while it is different
> > for each language, it's generally governed by the Translator interface.
> > Note that we already do this for Java, Groovy, and Python and the code
> > isn't too crazy - just 200 lines or so:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-
> > core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/jsr223/
> JavaTranslator.java
> > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-
> > groovy/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/groovy/jsr223/
> > GroovyTranslator.java
> > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/master/gremlin-
> > python/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/python/jsr223/
> > PythonTranslator.java
> >
> > I think that non-JVM languages could send the Gremlin string from the
> test
> > to Gremlin Server as a script first and return the bytecode as JSON. Then
> > it could use a "Translator" to then parse it into it's native language.
> > Shouldn't we just build a CSharpTranslator similar to these? does that
> make
> > sense?
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <
> > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > I've been looking over the current test scenarios on the TINKERPOP-1784
> > > branch, with the C# GLV test suite in mind, and oh man that's an
> > impressive
> > > amount of scenarios!
> > >
> > > So far, I have a suggestion.
> > >
> > > Instead of
> > >
> > > Scenario: g_V_fold_countXlocalX
> > > Given the modern graph
> > > And the traversal of
> > > """
> > > g.V().fold().count(Scope.local)
> > > """
> > >
> > > We could use
> > >
> > > Scenario: g_V_fold_countXlocalX
> > > Given the modern graph
> > > And parameter 1 being an enum
> > > """
> > > Scope.local
> > > """
> > > And the traversal of
> > > """
> > > g.V().fold().count(param1)
> > > """
> > >
> > > That way we can exclude enums from possible parameter values, narrowing
> > > down the amount of types of parameters allowed, ie: const numeric,
> const
> > > strings (wrapped in double quotes), traversals (starting with `__`) ,
> > ...,
> > > making parsing the traversal a little easier.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:54 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> spmalle...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Just a quick update on this item - it continues........
> > > >
> > > > Went down a bad path earlier in the week and ended up shelving a lot
> of
> > > > work - ended up just coded into a corner. Anyway, I've not really
> > changed
> > > > much in the implementation, but I've still not reached a point where
> > the
> > > > addition of a new .feature files comes without meeting some new type
> of
> > > > assertion that has to be dealt with. This ends up slowing down
> progress
> > > on
> > > > porting over the tests. Please feel free to peruse the latest changes
> > on
> > > > the branch and let me know if there's any feedback.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> > spmalle...@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I did some pretty heavy refactoring to the python test logic
> > (altered a
> > > > > bit by some revision of the gherkin feature file language) and the
> > > result
> > > > > is a much more simplified test logic file:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/
> > > > > gremlin-python/src/main/jython/radish/feature_steps.py
> > > > >
> > > > > About 120 lines of code (down from about 170). If you include the
> > test
> > > > > logic "setup" file:
> > > > >
> > > > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/
> > > > > gremlin-python/src/main/jython/radish/terrain.py
> > > > >
> > > > > we end up with about 250 lines of test logic total (take out the
> > > > > comment/license and we're probably well under 200 total - not too
> > > bad). I
> > > > > think I'm closing in on the end to infrastructure building here so
> > the
> > > > > basic framework is getting close to final at this point I believe.
> > I'll
> > > > > keep scanning the tests looking for other types of assertions that
> > I've
> > > > not
> > > > > yet covered, but it's getting pretty solid I think. Hopefully,
> there
> > > > won't
> > > > > need to be too many more lines of code needed to express the test
> > logic
> > > > as
> > > > > I like how things are looking right now.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:02 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <
> > > > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Great progress! I like how you avoided using ids, even if it adds
> > some
> > > > >> complexity to the transformation required.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The Python step definitions are still quite simple, I think it
> would
> > > be
> > > > >> mostly the same on the rest of the languages.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 1:45 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> > > spmalle...@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Just another update on progress with the test suite. The
> language
> > of
> > > > the
> > > > >> > .feature files is getting slightly more complex as I try to
> > > translate
> > > > >> more
> > > > >> > and more of our Java process suite tests into the language of
> the
> > > > >> gherkin
> > > > >> > files. You can see here where I've added the ability to include
> > > > >> parameters:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/
> > > > >> > gremlin-test/features/filter/Has.feature#L33
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I also came up with a method of asserting edges (didn't want to
> > rely
> > > > on
> > > > >> ids
> > > > >> > as it makes the gherkin harder to read, plus i didn't want to
> > assume
> > > > >> > TinkerGraph identifiers in case these tests were every used with
> > > some
> > > > >> other
> > > > >> > graph database that didn't use longs):
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/
> > > > >> > gremlin-test/features/map/Vertex.feature#L105-L111
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > for all those additions (and others) the logic required by the
> GLV
> > > to
> > > > >> > process these tests has stayed surprisingly simple:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/
> > > > >> > gremlin-python/src/main/jython/radish/feature_steps.py
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > There's a fair bit of regex/string manipulation involved there,
> > but
> > > > it's
> > > > >> > processing strings from the feature file so that's the nature of
> > it
> > > I
> > > > >> > suppose. I think I'm of the mind that I want to port all of the
> > > tests
> > > > to
> > > > >> > feature files, so I wrote this unit test to help validate that
> > none
> > > > were
> > > > >> > missed:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/
> > > > >> > gremlin-test/src/test/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/
> > > > >> > structure/FeatureCoverageTest.java
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I don't know that we have to get to 100% porting right away,
> but I
> > > > think
> > > > >> > that once we have these gherkin files written they not only
> become
> > > the
> > > > >> > basis for our current GLV testing work, but we might be able to
> > > simply
> > > > >> use
> > > > >> > them for testing the Java stuff as well - that would rid us of
> > > having
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > test code duplication. It also sets us up with a portable body
> of
> > > > tests
> > > > >> > that can be re-used in TinkerPop 4.x.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > I'm open to suggestions if anyone has any.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 11:23 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <
> > > > >> > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > I was able to build a proof of concept for a Gherkin-based
> test
> > > > >> runner in
> > > > >> > > C#, that takes the proposed count and select features
> > > > >> > > <https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/tree/TINKERPOP-1784/
> > > > >> > > gremlin-test/features/map>
> > > > >> > > and runs them using C# step definitions.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > It uses the Gherkin parser <https://github.com/cucumber/g
> > > > >> herkin-dotnet>
> > > > >> > > from
> > > > >> > > cucumber, there isn't a release of the parser with .NET Core
> > > support
> > > > >> so
> > > > >> > > I've
> > > > >> > > asked them to release one
> > > > >> > > <https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin-dotnet/issues/11> (there
> > is
> > > no
> > > > >> > > limitation from their source files). If they are not able to
> > > release
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > in
> > > > >> > > the next few days, we can implement our own as it should be
> > pretty
> > > > >> > straight
> > > > >> > > forward.
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 2:23 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> > > > >> spmalle...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > Thanks for the update. I'm trying to keep the test language
> as
> > > > >> simple
> > > > >> > as
> > > > >> > > > possible so that we don't need an overly complicated test
> > > > >> > implementation.
> > > > >> > > > Hopefully that will help make the .NET approach as easy as
> > > > possible.
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <
> > > > >> > > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > > > > I've been looking into Gherkin support for .NET: SpecFlow,
> > the
> > > > >> > cucumber
> > > > >> > > > > implementation for .NET <https://cucumber.io/docs#
> > > > >> > > > cucumber-implementations
> > > > >> > > > > >,
> > > > >> > > > > does not support .NET Core platform (we use .NET Core
> build
> > > > tools
> > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > .NET GLV) and only supports .NET Framework.
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > From what I can see <https://github.com/techtalk/S
> > > > >> pecFlow/projects/2
> > > > >> > >,
> > > > >> > > > > .NET
> > > > >> > > > > Core support on SpecFlow is coming at a very slow pace and
> > we
> > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > >> > > > > expect to land any time soon (there were some design
> > decisions
> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > SpecFlow
> > > > >> > > > > library that makes supporting other platforms non-trivial,
> > > like
> > > > >> > > requiring
> > > > >> > > > > code gen).
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > The alternative would be to implement our own harness to
> > > support
> > > > >> it:
> > > > >> > > > from a
> > > > >> > > > > xunit test, look for certain types and parse the
> > annotations,
> > > > and
> > > > >> > > execute
> > > > >> > > > > them using the Gherkin features.
> > > > >> > > > > There is a .NET cross-platform Gherkin parser:
> > > > >> > > > > https://github.com/cucumber/gherkin-dotnet
> > > > >> > > > > I'll continue looking into this option and try to
> understand
> > > the
> > > > >> > effort
> > > > >> > > > > required...
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Jorge Bay Gondra <
> > > > >> > > > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > Nice! Gherkin will make our lives easier with a growing
> > > number
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > GLVs.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > We should find a way to define the different features
> > > > supported
> > > > >> by
> > > > >> > > each
> > > > >> > > > > > GLV, as it's reasonable to have different maturity
> levels
> > > per
> > > > >> GLV
> > > > >> > > (ie:
> > > > >> > > > > > lambdas support, traversal strategy, ...). I don't know
> if
> > > it
> > > > >> will
> > > > >> > be
> > > > >> > > > > > beneficial to do it in the Gherkin files or within each
> > GLV
> > > > >> > > > > implementation.
> > > > >> > > > > > Also, we should consider the process of rolling out a
> new
> > > > >> method /
> > > > >> > > > class
> > > > >> > > > > > in the java implementation, how that could affect each
> > GLV.
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 11:12 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> > > > >> > > > spmalle...@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> that's what i meant by "reflection" or as you suggest
> > > > eval(). I
> > > > >> > > guess
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > >> point is that if the language can support some way of
> > > taking
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > string
> > > > >> > > > > >> value and turning it automatically into a traversal in
> > that
> > > > >> GLVs
> > > > >> > > style
> > > > >> > > > > >> then
> > > > >> > > > > >> we should do that.
> > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Daniel Kuppitz
> > > > >> <m...@gremlin.guru>
> > > > >> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > For unparameterized queries it can probably be as
> easy
> > > as:
> > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > @given("the traversal of")
> > > > >> > > > > >> > def translate_traversal(step):
> > > > >> > > > > >> > g = step.context.g
> > > > >> > > > > >> > step.context.traversal = eval(step.text)
> > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > Cheers,
> > > > >> > > > > >> > Daniel
> > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:39 PM, Daniel Kuppitz
> > > > >> <m...@gremlin.guru
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > That's great stuff. I haven't used Cucumber /
> Gherkin
> > > for
> > > > >> > years,
> > > > >> > > > > but I
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > really like the BDD approach.
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > and then you can look at the GLV Gremlin
> translations
> > > > >> > > specifically
> > > > >> > > > > >> here:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/tink
> > > > >> erpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/grem
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> lin-python/src/main/jython/
> > > > radish/count_features_step.py#
> > > > >> > > L34-L46
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > This part is the only thing that looks weird to me.
> > > > You're
> > > > >> > > > basically
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > writing every query twice; is there really no
> easier
> > > way
> > > > >> to do
> > > > >> > > > that?
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Cheers,
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > Daniel
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > On Thu, Sep 14, 2017 at 1:17 PM, Stephen Mallette <
> > > > >> > > > > >> spmalle...@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> I've brought this issue up in the past and had
> > > suggested
> > > > >> some
> > > > >> > > > > >> options I
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> had
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> in mind but now I've finally put the basics of
> those
> > > > >> ideas in
> > > > >> > > > place
> > > > >> > > > > >> so I
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> figured I'd start a fresh thread. Recall that the
> > > issue
> > > > at
> > > > >> > hand
> > > > >> > > > is
> > > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > > > >> > we
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> don't have a test suite for GLVs as gremlin-test
> is
> > > > bound
> > > > >> to
> > > > >> > > the
> > > > >> > > > > >> JVM. We
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> have some tricks that let us test gremlin-python
> > with
> > > it
> > > > >> but
> > > > >> > > > those
> > > > >> > > > > >> > tricks
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> won't work for every language and we now have the
> > > first
> > > > >> > > language
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> gremlin-dotnet and upcoming gremlin-javascript
> which
> > > > won't
> > > > >> > > > support
> > > > >> > > > > it
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> (yes,
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> i know that gremlin-javascript can run on the jvm
> > but
> > > > >> there
> > > > >> > are
> > > > >> > > > > >> issues
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> with
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> getting it all to work with the test framework
> that
> > > make
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > > > unduly
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> complicated).
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> On other threads I offered the idea that we look
> to
> > > use
> > > > >> > Gherkin
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > >> write
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> general Gremlin test specifications, which then
> > could
> > > be
> > > > >> read
> > > > >> > > and
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> processed
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> by the wide variety of test frameworks that can
> read
> > > > that
> > > > >> > > format
> > > > >> > > > -
> > > > >> > > > > >> there
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> tend to be Gherkin processors in just about every
> > > > >> language -
> > > > >> > > for
> > > > >> > > > > >> > example,
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> see:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> https://cucumber.io/
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> I just created this issue:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> https://issues.apache.org/
> > jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1784
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> and pushed this branch:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/
> > > tinkerpop/tree/TINKERPOP-1784
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> which demonstrates how this works with
> > gremlin-python.
> > > > The
> > > > >> > > basic
> > > > >> > > > > >> anatomy
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> this setup involves this new directory in
> > > gremlin-test:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/tink
> > > > >> erpop/tree/TINKERPOP-1784/grem
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> lin-test/features
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> It contains the Gherkin .features files. These are
> > the
> > > > >> test
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> specifications.
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> They are written using gremlin-java as the "model"
> > > > >> language.
> > > > >> > > GLVs
> > > > >> > > > > >> will
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> then
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> need to write some infrastructure to process these
> > > > Gherkin
> > > > >> > > files.
> > > > >> > > > > The
> > > > >> > > > > >> > key
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> to making this "easy" to implement will lie in our
> > > > >> abiilty to
> > > > >> > > > keep
> > > > >> > > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> assertions we want to have relatively simple. The
> > more
> > > > >> > > simplistic
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> language in the Gherkin .feature files the easier
> > the
> > > > job
> > > > >> it
> > > > >> > > will
> > > > >> > > > > be
> > > > >> > > > > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> GLVs to build their infrastructure. Of course,
> once
> > > that
> > > > >> > > > > >> infrastructure
> > > > >> > > > > >> > is
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> in place, the GLV developer just has to write the
> > GLV
> > > > >> version
> > > > >> > > of
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> Gremlin specified in the .feature file. So you can
> > > look
> > > > at
> > > > >> > all
> > > > >> > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> "infrastructure" code here in this pair of files:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/tink
> > > > >> erpop/tree/TINKERPOP-1784/grem
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> lin-python/src/main/jython/radish
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> and then you can look at the GLV Gremlin
> > translations
> > > > >> > > > specifically
> > > > >> > > > > >> here:
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> https://github.com/apache/tink
> > > > >> erpop/blob/TINKERPOP-1784/grem
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> lin-python/src/main/jython/
> > > > radish/count_features_step.py#
> > > > >> > > L34-L46
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> I think this approach works pretty well and solves
> > our
> > > > >> > general
> > > > >> > > > > >> problems
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> for
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> GLV testing. There is some pain up front in
> > > implementing
> > > > >> the
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> "infrastructure" but after that new Gremlin tests
> > > added
> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > .feature
> > > > >> > > > > >> > files
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> just need to translated in the GLV. I suppose we
> > could
> > > > >> > > > "automate" a
> > > > >> > > > > >> good
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> portion of the translation with reflection of some
> > > sort.
> > > > >> > > Anything
> > > > >> > > > > >> else
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> could just be handled manually.
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> Not sure if we need to use this new model to
> wholly
> > > > >> replace
> > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > old
> > > > >> > > > > >> one.
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> The process test suite has its place in helping
> > graph
> > > > >> > database
> > > > >> > > > > >> providers
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> test their stuff. I also imagine that introducing
> > this
> > > > >> > approach
> > > > >> > > > in
> > > > >> > > > > >> that
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> context would create a breaking change which we
> > would
> > > > then
> > > > >> > need
> > > > >> > > > to
> > > > >> > > > > >> push
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> off
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> to 3.4.0. I suppose that gives us time to think,
> > but
> > > > for
> > > > >> now
> > > > >> > > it
> > > > >> > > > > >> might
> > > > >> > > > > >> > not
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> be best to conflate the two and just treat them as
> > > > >> separate
> > > > >> > > > aspects
> > > > >> > > > > >> of
> > > > >> > > > > >> > the
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> test suite.
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> Anyway - it's important we settle on an approach
> to
> > > > >> testing
> > > > >> > as
> > > > >> > > we
> > > > >> > > > > >> really
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> shouldn't do a GA release of the Gremlin .NET GLV
> > > > without
> > > > >> > > getting
> > > > >> > > > > the
> > > > >> > > > > >> > test
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> suite solid. please yell if you have any ideas or
> > > > >> feedback on
> > > > >> > > > this
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >> approach.
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > > > >>
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > > >
> > > > >> > > > >
> > > > >> > > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> >
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
