Update constraint syntax #1238
Update constraint syntax #1238
Conversation
|
Should we add |
HannesSandberg
force-pushed
the
4.4-constraint-syntax
branch
from
dd1263c
to
38da100
Compare
Co-authored-by: Therese Magnusson <[email protected]>
Hunterness
force-pushed
the
4.4-constraint-syntax
branch
from
38da100
to
e09294f
Compare
|
CIP: opencypher/openCypher#166 (and just the updates we did https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LemTgk1hcWQhSlFl9jEsiKciYyBV2yf_XVDgKzt29RI/edit?usp=sharing I believe) Accompanying manual-modeling PR: https://github.com/neo-technology/neo4j-manual-modeling/pull/2332 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Overall it looks good, only file I found which you should also consider updating is PrettifierTest.scala. And then I have some smaller thoughts I put in the comments.
I have built the Cypher manual and confirmed everything looks ok, not sure how to build the refcard these days though.
cypher/cypher-docs/src/docs/dev/deprecations-additions-and-compatibility.asciidoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
cypher/cypher-docs/src/test/scala/org/neo4j/cypher/docgen/ConstraintsTest.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
cypher/cypher-docs/src/docs/dev/deprecations-additions-and-compatibility.asciidoc
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There are three such files, but I think I remember something about those being unused so that's why we skipped them ( |
cypher/cypher-docs/src/test/scala/org/neo4j/cypher/docgen/ConstraintsTest.scala
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| testQuery( | ||
| title = "Create a unique constraint using deprecated syntax", | ||
| text = "The unique constraint ensures that your database " + | ||
| "will never contain more than one node with a specific label and one property value.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
| "will never contain more than one node with a specific label and one property value.", | |
| "never contains more than one node with a specific label and one property value.", |
We like to use present tense and active voice, but I am aware that this has not been consistently implemented, and not in this section either. Perhaps it is better to leave it as is, for consistency's sake.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think this is just copy paste from another test in the same file, so perhaps it is better to make a cleanup card on either your Trello board our ours about updating it across the board.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I agree, it's best dealt with separately. And with that, I have no more objections. Should I merge?
Syntax changed to
FOR ... REQUIREinstead ofON ... ASSERT