[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2261?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16882435#comment-16882435
]
Divij Vaidya commented on TINKERPOP-2261:
-----------------------------------------
But we do require more coverage at the Gremlin Server as was highlighted by the
bug referenced in the description. Short term, we can use Neo4j to do that and
modify the purpose of this task to add a test which would have caught the bug
above.
Longer term, in the spirit of being vendor agnostic, in my opinion, TinkerPop
should define its own transaction semantics and add a reference implementation
to test those semantics.
Do you think it is worth re-opening this discussion again in the community? Or
did we have a strong conclusion against this the last time discussion happened?
> Adding transactions to Tinkergraph for better testability
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP-2261
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2261
> Project: TinkerPop
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: tinkergraph
> Affects Versions: 3.3.7, 3.4.2
> Reporter: Divij Vaidya
> Priority: Major
>
> Tinkergraph should act as a datastore which supports transactions. This would
> help define tx semantics for Gremlin and add test suites that fail when those
> semantics are violated.
> As an example,
> [https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/TINKERPOP/issues/TINKERPOP-2257] bug
> would have been caught by the test suite if the tinkergraph was mimicking
> transaction support.
> Hence, this task breaks down into:
> 1. Mimic transaction support in TinkerGraph
> 2. Add tests that validate the transaction semantics (e.g. accessing the
> iterator after the transaction is closed will cause an error)
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
