-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 409
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
Note that if..else now supports DML #6660
Conversation
.. versionadded:: 4.0 | ||
|
||
DML is now supported in :eql:op:`if..else` as of EdgeDB 4.0. | ||
|
||
DML (i.e., :ref:`insert <ref_eql_insert>`, :ref:`update <ref_eql_update>`, | ||
:ref:`delete <ref_eql_delete>`) is not supported in :eql:op:`if..else`. If you |
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.
This reads kinda of contradictory still. We're saying it is now supported in >= 4.0 but then saying it is not supported at all. I know the logic works out fine still, but maybe we should mention that it wasn't supported prior to 4.0 to make it super clear that this whole section can be ignored if you are using >= 4.0?
As an aside: I wonder if there is a section of the docs that we should update to show a demonstration of conditional DML as well?
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 agree. This was my argument against this model of docs versioning we've gone with. By allowing only for adding new sections to the docs as we release new versions, we end up with docs that have to contradict themselves. I do like your idea for reworking this to make that clearer though.
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.
We could add an example to the if..else
docs where we mention this is now possible. There are probably some other places it could go too. We could mention it in unless conflict
since that is itself a way to do conditional DML.
For this PR though, I'll focus on getting this one change shored up, and we can look at other opportunities to show conditional DML as a separate PR.
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 is clearer. Thanks for the suggestion, @scotttrinh!
No description provided.