- 
                Notifications
    You must be signed in to change notification settings 
- Fork 35
Update 22N69 and 22N71 to have more consistent wording when compared to the corresponding constraint errors #338
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.
Since the main PR didn't make the 2025.06 cutoff
4199797    to
    7e51811      
    Compare
  
    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.
Both look good. Could you also add an example scenario and example?
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 great! Thank you!
…to the corresponding constraint errors
7d015c4    to
    c76606f      
    Compare
  
    | Thanks for the documentation updates. The preview documentation has now been torn down - reopening this PR will republish it. | 
…to the corresponding constraint errors (neo4j#338) Updated in neo-technology/neo4j#31435 (merged the day after cutoff for 2025.06) --------- Co-authored-by: Reneta Popova <[email protected]>
Updated in https://github.com/neo-technology/neo4j/pull/31435 (merged the day after cutoff for 2025.06)