Union ordering no longer deprecated #219
Conversation
|
Thanks for the documentation updates. The preview documentation has now been torn down - reopening this PR will republish it. |
|
@gem-neo4j, is this undeprecation for the 5.26 LTS release or 2025.01? |
|
@NataliaIvakina For the 5.26LTS release |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think everything looks good. If I understood everything correctly, the only thing to do here is to remove the example.
Also, I suppose you have to update the Cypher manual. This deprecation is mentioned here.
|
The warning message will show up in the Cypher 5.x versions before 5.26, do you think we should just remove it from there completely or add an update in 5.26 saying the deprecation has been removed? |
I think you should add an update in 5.26. Don't remove the deprecation from the list because it is true for those who use Neo4j 5.5-5.25. Probably in the Status Codes, we also have to add a note or a line to the page https://neo4j.com/docs/status-codes/current/changelogs/. @renetapopova, what do you think? |
|
Like this? neo4j/docs-cypher#1113 |
Yes, this looks good (from my side 😄). I'm sure Jens will help you with reviewing the PR for the Cypher manual |
I don't think we can just remove the example and the deprecation. This is a valid deprecation until 5.26. Also, @Lojjs, isn't the removal of this deprecation a breaking change? And yes, we should also update Changes to status codes per Neo4j version to say that this deprecation has been removed in 5.26 or something in this line of thought. |
| @@ -1440,68 +1438,6 @@ CREATE DATABASE `foo.bar` | |||
| ====== | |||
| ===== | |||
|
|
|||
| .Using differently ordered return items in a `UNION` clause | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would rather leave the example and add a note that from 5.26, using differently ordered return items in a UNION [ALL] clause is no longer deprecated.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
And the same for the above.
No idea 🤷 It is PM (Valerio I believe) that has decided that this deprecation should be removed. I would maybe let PM decide how to handle the documentation-wise as well. I do not have any strong opinon about this |
|
But do we provide a complete list of all examples for deprecated features here? Union reordering just falls under the notification code |
|
Removing a deprecation is not considered breaking afaik. Also like Natalia mentioned, that page does not provide a complete list. Including this deprecation there is confusing as it is no longer true and adding a disclaimer feels overkill to mention. I think a user not seeing any mention of this here is the best option :) |
|
Adding Valerio's suggestion here for completeness: |
|
Replaced by #224 |
Supersedes #219 --------- Co-authored-by: Reneta Popova <[email protected]>
We decided to undeprecate this :)
related to https://github.com/neo-technology/neo4j/pull/28207