Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 76.15%. Comparing base (05ac05d) to head (d0d65e5).
⚠️ Report is 508 commits behind head on 3.7-dev.

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##             3.7-dev    #2298      +/-   ##
=============================================
- Coverage      76.17%   76.15%   -0.02%     
+ Complexity     13113    13109       -4     
=============================================
  Files           1083     1083              
  Lines          64995    64995              
  Branches        7259     7259              
=============================================
- Hits           49510    49500      -10     
- Misses         12789    12794       +5     
- Partials        2696     2701       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@FlorianHockmann The examples aren't integrated into the pipeline or GH actions, but they are self-contained as simple projects in their respective example folders and can be run after building. Currently undecided on where to introduce them to users, but we could maybe add them to either the docs in each GLV section or in README files.

The examples aren't integrated into the pipeline or GH actions, but they are self-contained as simple projects in their respective example folders and can be run after building.

I think we should look into adding them to the main Maven build and at least add a smoke test for them (like executing the methods to ensure that no exception gets thrown) so they are covered by GH actions. Otherwise, we won't notice if we break them, e.g., by changing some API.
This probably means however that their connection parameters need to be changed as the test server doesn't listen on port 8182.

Currently undecided on where to introduce them to users, but we could maybe add them to either the docs in each GLV section or in README files.

I think a short mention in the reference docs for each GLV would be great as that is the place where we mostly document the GLVs. README files could of course also make sense, especially if the applications contain more than a single file (depending on @kenhuuu's comment) to briefly explain the application and its structure. README's are usually also what search engines will link to so that's where users will land if they didn't follow a link from somewhere else in our docs.

We should probably also remove the current Gremlin.Net.Template (docs src) as it basically served the same purpose and we don't need two example applications for .NET.

This probably means however that their connection parameters need to be changed as the test server doesn't listen on port 8182.

if we use a nonstandard port i think it would be good to ensure the comments are clear that the standard port is 8182.

Maybe I'm also overcautious here and we don't need any tests. Ensuring that the applications still compile probably already covers most cases as we would already notice breaking changes. But then I would at least let GH actions build the applications which should be easy to do by integrating them into the Maven build.

Maybe I'm also overcautious here and we don't need any tests. Ensuring that the applications still compile probably already covers most cases as we would already notice breaking changes. But then I would at least let GH actions build the applications which should be easy to do by integrating them into the Maven build.

This has already turned out to be a really good idea as #2366 would already cause these examples to break eventually.

Thanks for all the updates Ryan!

VOTE +1

VOTE+1