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’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

add information about new errors for revoke commands in the additions/removals section #1170

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: cypher-25
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

HannesSandberg
Copy link
Contributor

Operations manual PR

@neo-technology-commit-status-publisher
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR includes documentation updates
View the updated docs at https://neo4j-docs-cypher-1170.surge.sh

Updated pages:

@Hunterness Hunterness self-assigned this Jan 17, 2025
REVOKE ROLE regularUser FROM bob
----
a|
Notifications for impossible `REVOKE` commands, where a user, a role, or a database does not exist, have been replaced with errors.
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I feel like maybe it should be under removed features instead of updated features, we did remove the ability to not get an error...

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

hmm, maybe. Feels more like a change than an removal (since we are changing the notification into an error). But I don't have a strong opinion 🤷

Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Had we not had a notification before this would absolutely be a case of removed capabilities -> introducing an error, so I think I'd go with that here as well 🤔 errors are not really part of the features capabilities but rather things it can't do (and the updates section is usually for additional capabilities, not restricting it I think)

But we could see if the docs team has any other view on things

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants