Upgrades Tinkerpop to 3.4.1 and SLF4J to 1.7.25, adds Travis/docker-compose scripting #358
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR upgrades both TInkerpop to version 3.4.1 and SLF4J to version 1.7.25 to enable compatibility with sqlg consumer libraries, such as gremlin-scala. The Tinkerpop upgrade introduced numerous API refactors which I've adapted here, most of them largely no-ops to ensure conformance.
To test that these adaptations haven't introduced any weird bugs into the codebase, I've reconfigured the Travis CI buildfile and Docker build scripting to support the Postgres defaults encoded within the sqlg test suite. The Postgres dialect-facing tests ran cleanly, as did all other non-DB specific tests, but several targets such as the MySQL and MS SQL Server integration suites did not, as we have not yet set up databases for these tests.
With the introduction of a docker-compose file, included here, we should be able to add support for all remaining databases and integrate full functional/integration tests for branch and master integrations. As these machines run with 2 cores, we should be able to have everything run under the 50 minute limit with 4 Maven threads. I'd be happy to take this on in a future review as we continue our sqlg integration over here.
Let me know what you think and thanks for the consideration!