Skip to content

Docs (discuss feedback): fix incorrect statement about upsert blocks allowing one query and one mutation #161

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

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Dec 23, 2020

Conversation

aaroncarey
Copy link
Contributor

@aaroncarey aaroncarey commented Nov 26, 2020

Fixes the incorrect statement in the PR title, per DGRAPH-2777 and https://discuss.dgraph.io/t/f-strings-vs-variables/11606/3

  • Some rewording in this section
  • Clarification about what upsert blocks are and how to use them
  • Updated a deprecated URL pointing to upsert block docs

On-hold pending resolution of TeamCity build errors.


This change is Reviewable

…allowing one query and one mutation

Per DGRAPH-2777
@CLAassistant
Copy link

CLAassistant commented Nov 26, 2020

CLA assistant check
All committers have signed the CLA.

@anand-chandrashekar
Copy link

Hi @aaroncarey , Let's use the same language used in the upsert block documentation. IMO, it's unambiguous.

"The upsert block allows performing queries and mutations in a single request. The upsert block contains one query block and one or more than one mutation blocks. Variables defined in the query block can be used in the mutation blocks using the uid and val function."

@anand-chandrashekar
Copy link

Minor alteration:
"The upsert block allows performing queries and mutations in a single request. The upsert block contains one query block and one or more than one mutation blocks. Variables defined in the query block can be used in the mutation blocks using the uid and val function available in DQL."

Copy link
Contributor

@bucanero bucanero left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

:lgtm:

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @anand-chandrashekar and @bucanero)

Copy link
Contributor Author

@aaroncarey aaroncarey left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the feedback, Anand! And for the review, Damian! I incorporated your feedback with minor rewording into the latest commit.

Reviewable status: 0 of 1 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @anand-chandrashekar)

@aaroncarey
Copy link
Contributor Author

On hold pending resolution of build integration failures.

@aaroncarey
Copy link
Contributor Author

Superseded by #162

@bucanero bucanero merged commit 208e1ec into master Dec 23, 2020
@bucanero bucanero deleted the aa-doc-pydgraph-D-2777 branch December 23, 2020 14:05
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants