Cole-Greer commented on code in PR #3483: URL: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/3483#discussion_r3540395986
########## docs/src/dev/developer/for-committers.asciidoc: ########## @@ -672,8 +672,19 @@ TinkerGQL support out of the box and runs these scenarios without any additional * `@InsertionOrderingRequired` - The scenario is reliant on the graph system predictably returning results (vertices, edges, properties) in the same order in which they were inserted into the graph. * `@MetaProperties` - The scenario makes use of meta-properties. +* `@MultiLabel` - The scenario requires a graph that supports multi-label vertices (i.e. +`ZERO_OR_MORE` vertex label cardinality). Providers that only support single-label vertices should +exclude these tests. +* `@MultiLabelDefault` - The scenario expects multi-label output as the default behavior for Review Comment: I've reworked the test infrastructure and updated these docs. `@MultiLabelDefault` and `@SingleLabelDefault` are for providers to opt-out of scenarios which assume the incorrect default behaviour for unconfigured traversals in their graph. Every provider should opt-out of one of these 2 tags. One noteworthy caveat is that we never run any of the `@MultiLabelDefault` tests in TinkerGraph, as TinkerGraph does not have a configurable default here, it is always a SingleLabelDefault graph. I think this is acceptable, as there are relatively few tests using this tag, and I think we can just be careful when reviewing those scenarios to ensure they properly encode the expected semantics. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
