Skip to content
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鈥檒l occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: is active method in transaction #4537

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 30, 2020
Merged

docs: is active method in transaction #4537

merged 1 commit into from Jan 30, 2020

Conversation

@jannyHou
Copy link
Contributor

jannyHou commented Jan 29, 2020

Implements #3471
The doc PR.

Checklist

馃憠 Read and sign the CLA (Contributor License Agreement) 馃憟

  • npm test passes on your machine
  • New tests added or existing tests modified to cover all changes
  • Code conforms with the style guide
  • API Documentation in code was updated
  • Documentation in /docs/site was updated
  • Affected artifact templates in packages/cli were updated
  • Affected example projects in examples/* were updated

馃憠 Check out how to submit a PR 馃憟

@jannyHou jannyHou requested review from bajtos and raymondfeng as code owners Jan 29, 2020
@jannyHou jannyHou force-pushed the isactive-doc branch from cbcbd3c to 99d9f74 Jan 29, 2020
Suppose you have a transaction called `tx`, you can call `tx.isActive()` to
check whether it's still active.

{% include note.html content=" The postgresql connector doesn't fully support this function due to its special way of creating the transaction instance. Details are explained in [issue #411](https://github.com/strongloop/loopback-connector-postgresql/issues/411). " %}

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@dhmlau

dhmlau Jan 29, 2020

Member

Could you please elaborate on "The postgresql connector doesn't fully support this function"?
And there's an extra space after the quote.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jannyHou

jannyHou Jan 29, 2020

Author Contributor

@dhmlau The details are explained in issue #411, or do you want me to expand the content here?

The function itself is simple, and I already have a brief explanation for the inconsistency:

The postgresql connector doesn't fully support this function due to its special way of creating the transaction instance.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@dhmlau

dhmlau Jan 29, 2020

Member

I'm thinking whether we could add a one-liner about what doesn't really work in the postgresql connector, and then point to the issue for more details.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@jannyHou

jannyHou Jan 29, 2020

Author Contributor

@dhmlau added

@jannyHou jannyHou force-pushed the isactive-doc branch from 99d9f74 to 6fbb2f4 Jan 29, 2020
@dhmlau
dhmlau approved these changes Jan 29, 2020
@dhmlau dhmlau added the Docs label Jan 29, 2020
@jannyHou jannyHou force-pushed the isactive-doc branch from 0facf15 to 197aaab Jan 30, 2020
@jannyHou jannyHou merged commit 1dad699 into master Jan 30, 2020
4 checks passed
4 checks passed
Travis CI - Pull Request Build Passed
Details
clahub All contributors have signed the Contributor License Agreement.
Details
continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
coverage/coveralls Coverage remained the same at 92.367%
Details
@jannyHou jannyHou deleted the isactive-doc branch Jan 30, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked issues

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants
You can鈥檛 perform that action at this time.