Update the description of box.space._schema
#4570
Conversation
xuniq
changed the title
_schema system spacebox.space._schema
xuniq
force-pushed
the
gh-3464-replicaset_uuid
branch
from
e1af39e to
d1234f5
Compare
| .. code-block:: console | ||
| tarantool> box.space._schema:delete('oncehello') | ||
| app:instance001> box.space._schema:delete('oncehello') |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am not reviewing doc patches often, so I might be out of the context. Is it common for us to write the instance name like this now? Or is tarantool> more canonical?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thank you for the review!
We wrote the tarantool> prefix (and a few other variants) before version 3.0. In Tarantool 3.x, when connecting to an instance, the prefix is displayed in the application_name:instance_name> format. It seems correct to write it this way: the users see this format in the docs, and they see the same format in the terminal (usage example: what's new 3.2.0). This way became widespread when executable examples appeared in the 3.x docs (example: GS). In these examples, the application_name:instance_name format makes it easier for the user to follow the guide steps.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
tarantool -i prompts with tarantool>.
{tarantoolctl,cartridge,tt} connect <..uri..> prompts with something like uri>.
cartridge enter,tt connect} <..instance name..> prompts with someting like instance name>. AFAIR, app:name is tt's (and cartridge-cli's) instance name format.
So developers likely frequently see tarantool>, but users likely see instance name> more often.
|
Added info about |
Co-authored-by: Elena Shebunyaeva <elena.shebunyaeva@gmail.com>
Staging:
replicaset_namedescriptionclustertoreplicaset_uuidmax_iddeprecationbox.once()descriptionFixes #3409
Fixes #3464
max_iddeprecation to 2.11 branch