Thanks, it will be a little while before I get to the current master branch.
However what about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-949 ? This is the issue I meant to ask about, copied the wrong issue by accident. It affects my current optimization of the RepeatStep so would like some idea as to whether its a bug or not. Thanks Pieter On 10/11/2015 23:54, Marko Rodriguez wrote: > Hi Pieter, > > You are right, the checkMap() method was not asserting anything and thus, > wasn't correctly testing GroupV3d0Test. I have since fixed it and pushed to > master. > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-948 > > https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-tinkerpop.git;a=commitdiff;h=cab1a8fd > > Please review and tell me if all is good on your side. > > Thanks, > Marko. > > http://markorodriguez.com > > On Nov 10, 2015, at 12:56 PM, pieter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> No I did not mean to type in TINKERPOP3-948 at all. >> >> TINKERPOP3-948 is just a by the by that I noticed. This was on the >> 3.0.2-incubating branch so things might have changed since then. I did >> also notice that the checkMap function is not quite good enough because >> even though the data is correct the traversal result map is slightly >> more complex than what it is asserted against. >> >> However all that is fairly easy to resolve, its more TINKERPOP3-949 that >> I'd like some clarity on. >> >> Cheers >> Pieter >> >> On 10/11/2015 21:47, Stephen Mallette wrote: >>> It fails for TinkerGraph when I add the asserts. It doesn't fail on the >>> tests you specified though. Fails on GroupTestV3d0 - and not GroupTest >>> (the old group() function). Is that what you meant to type in >>> TINKERPOP3-948? >>> >>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:43 PM, pieter <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Ah sorry posted the wrong link, I mean this issue >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-949 >>>> I found the assert bug while investigating failing repeat tests. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> Pieter >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/11/2015 21:40, Stephen Mallette wrote: >>>>> sorry - don't know why i didn't question that ticket further. that's >>>>> pretty awesome - no asserts. i can add that, but how did you know your >>>>> tests aren't passing if there was no assert? >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 2:35 PM, pieter <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it possible to have some discussion regarding >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-948 before 3.2.0 as I >>>>>> now found myself in the scenario of not passing the test suite and not >>>>>> sure of the resolution? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> Pieter >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 10/11/2015 20:02, Marko Rodriguez wrote: >>>>>>> Hi Stephen, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I concur. I have a list of notes that I've written that I will put into >>>>>> JIRAs soon. Half will be possible for 3.1.1 and half will have to go >>>> into >>>>>> 3.2.0. >>>>>>> However, I don't think we should just rush to get 3.2.0 out. I would be >>>>>> happy to see 3.2.0 around March-ish+. >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Marko. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://markorodriguez.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Nov 10, 2015, at 10:59 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> I added 3.1.1-incubating to JIRA as the next release to start >>>>>> planning. I >>>>>>>> think it would be good to do at least one (two?) release on the 3.1.x >>>>>> line >>>>>>>> before we think too seriously about 3.2.x and major change. Would be >>>>>> nice >>>>>>>> to see this 3.1.1-incubating development period see some more >>>> tutorials >>>>>> and >>>>>>>> other documentation, improve documentation organization, get apache >>>>>> jenkins >>>>>>>> flowing, etc. It seems to fit naturally into the slower holiday >>>> period >>>>>>>> when folks aren't around as much. We could then plan up 3.2.x in the >>>>>> new >>>>>>>> year. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we'd continue to develop on master through the end of the year as that >>>>>>>> would continue to house the 3.1.x line of code. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thoughts? >
