Hi all, I'm happy to announce that the transactional PR is ready for review https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/2087. I'm still planning a couple of small changes, but nothing big.
Regards, Valentyn On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 10:18 PM Valentyn Kahamlyk < valent...@bitquilltech.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm working on transactions implementation and I would like to discuss > testing of this feature. > > Currently available options for tests in TinkerPop: > 1. Unit tests. > For development I wrote bunch of unit tests for the newly introduced > TinkerTransactionGraph because they are easier to make and much more > convenient to debug. However, these tests are very complicated to be reused > by other providers. > 2. Gherkin tests. > This is the best option for providers to test some features. However, the > current implementation does not support many of the abilities needed to test > transactions, for example multi-step tests and multi-threaded tests. The > ideal solution would be to add such features, but unfortunately it takes a > lot of time and effort. > For basic checks of TinkerTransactionGraph existing Gherkin tests are already > used. > 3. Integration tests. > We have 2 kinds of integration tests in `gremlin-test` > a) process tests are mirror of Gherkin tests with some small differences. > b) structure tests are probably the best candidate to use for > TinkerTransactionGraph. There is already a set of tests for transactions in > TransactionTest and I can add more cases there. These tests will be used in a > similar way to TinkerGraphStructureStandardTest. > 4. Gremlin Server tests. > I think these tests have a different responsibility. > 5. GLV tests. > All GLV's already have transaction tests and we can extend them to use > TinkerTransactionGraph at server-side. > > To summarize I suggest using structure tests to verify transaction > implementation. > > Regards, Valentyn > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 2:59 PM Valentyn Kahamlyk < > valent...@bitquilltech.com> wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> I opened PR with a detailed proposal for transaction implementation: >> https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/2054. >> >> Regards, Valentyn >> >> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 1:22 PM Valentyn Kahamlyk < >> valent...@bitquilltech.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Now, if you need to use transactions in tinkerpop, the only solution is >>> to use the Neo4J plugin. Unfortunately, this plugin has not been updated >>> for a long time and is only compatible with Neo4J version 3.4, which >>> reached end of life in March, 2020. >>> >>> I propose to implement native transaction support in TinkerGraph. >>> >>> The most interesting question to discuss is the level of isolation in >>> SQL 92 terms. There are 5 options to choose from: `Read uncommitted`, `Read >>> committed`, `Repeatable read`, `Snapshot` and `Serializable`. >>> >>> In terms of balancing complexity of implementation and functionality, I >>> think the most optimal option is `Read committed` or `Repeatable read`. >>> >>> I hope to implement `Read committed`, it is enough to add versions to >>> the Vertices and Edges, add list of updated Elements in Graph. >>> Write lock can be Vertex-level and Edge-level. >>> >>> Regards, Valentyn >>> >>
