- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 35
Add errors implemented in 2025.04 #299
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
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Found a small wording change compared to the codebase, the rest looks fine
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Since this is the last bigger docs PR for error codes, I did a check docs towards the codebase:
These are used in the codebase and needs documentation
- 08N19
- 08N20
- 08N21
- 22004
- 22012
- 42N0A
- 42N3A
- 42N3B
- 42N3C
- 50N18
- 50N19
- 50N20
- 52N21
Apart from the ones above, we have some which are present in the codebase but unused. Before adding the internal procedure for docs testing we need to decide whether these should be cleaned up from codebase or documented. For those that are standard defined I think it is better to clean up as it is only a subset, users cannot get them right now and they are already defined in GQL standard. But I am not 100% sure about the Neo4j defined unused ones, for these we need to be careful so not codes are re-used
Co-authored-by: Louise Berglund <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good! We also need to document the ones listed in the bigger message. But feel free to make a Trello card/separate PR for that
| Thanks for the documentation updates. The preview documentation has now been torn down - reopening this PR will republish it. | 
| 
 Thank you, @Lojjs! I'll follow your advice 🙂 and open a new PR for those errors | 
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good.
| 😄 You've already merged it. Sorry! | 
No description provided.