-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13
Add deprecations introduced in v6 #249
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
angrykoala
commented
Mar 18, 2025
- Remove additions section in migration guide
- Add new deprecations that have been introduced in version 6
[source, graphql, indent=0] | ||
---- | ||
type Movie implements Production @node { | ||
title: String! @unique | ||
actors: [Actor!]! @relationship(type: "ACTED_IN", direction: IN, properties: "ActedIn") | ||
} | ||
---- |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
what can a user do to achieve something similar?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think we really provide any alternative to this at the moment. The issue with @unique
is that it isn't really supported by neo4j itself, so it is very unreliable
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
could/should we communicate the fact that it was unreliable? (unreliable how? no way of ensuring uniqueness?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There were some cases in which the uniqueness could not be enforced, leading to data that doesn't match the schema. I'm not sure how to properly communicate this
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we usually write motivations for deprecations?
Perhaps we can write something like this:
The
@unique
directive has been removed as it could not always be reliably enforced, potentially leading to data inconsistencies that did not match the schema.
|
||
=== Deprecated `*aggregate` fields | ||
|
||
Top level and nested `*Aggregate` fields have been deprecated in favor of `aggregate` fields inside connections: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Top level and nested `*Aggregate` fields have been deprecated in favor of `aggregate` fields inside connections: | |
Top level and nested `*Aggregate` fields have been deprecated in favor of `aggregate` fields inside connections: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this one was correct, for instance moviesAggregate
has the casing as Aggregate
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
in the heading (line 630) it was lower case, likewise in the text following the code listing (line 664).
let's make it consistent then :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The mixed casing seems to be important in this. *Aggregate
(note the *) for example moviesAggregate, has been removed, and replaced with a aggregate
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so upper case for all "*" ?
Co-authored-by: Richard Sill <156673635+rsill-neo4j@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard Sill <156673635+rsill-neo4j@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-authored-by: Richard Sill <156673635+rsill-neo4j@users.noreply.github.com>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
last suggestion + approval
Co-authored-by: Richard Sill <156673635+rsill-neo4j@users.noreply.github.com>
Thanks for the documentation updates. The preview documentation has now been torn down - reopening this PR will republish it. |