Add new GQLSTATUS codes for search #408
Conversation
| = 42I69 | ||
|
|
||
| == Status description | ||
| error: syntax error or access rule violation - invalid search variable reference. `{ <<variable>> }` must reference a variable from the same MATCH statement. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit unsure if we want to capitalize match or not, I noticed I was not consistent with this in the product PR. Of course it should be the same for all 4 codes but not sure if it should be match statement or MATCH statement
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I vote for MATCH because of https://neo4j.com/docs/cypher-manual/current/styleguide/#cypher-styleguide-casing. Personally I always write my queries in lower case though...
Lojjs
force-pushed
the
gqlstatus-for-search
branch
from
f5925c0 to
4be53df
Compare
Lojjs
force-pushed
the
gqlstatus-for-search
branch
from
4be53df to
684abfb
Compare
| ---- | ||
| MATCH (movie:Movie) | ||
| MATCH (m:Movie {title:'Matrix, The'}) | ||
| SEARCH movie IN ( |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
SEARCH will be a Cypher 25 feature, so do you think it make sense to prefix all example queries with CYPHER 25 for clarity?
Or can we assume that a user reading these docs is already on Cypher 25 and it can be implicit that the default language must be Cypher 25 for them to behave this way and just not just throw parser errors?
| = 42I69 | ||
|
|
||
| == Status description | ||
| error: syntax error or access rule violation - invalid search variable reference. `{ <<variable>> }` must reference a variable from the same MATCH statement. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I vote for MATCH because of https://neo4j.com/docs/cypher-manual/current/styleguide/#cypher-styleguide-casing. Personally I always write my queries in lower case though...
| @@ -0,0 +1,38 @@ | |||
| // TODO update to actual version when feature flag in enabled | |||
| :page-role: new-2026.01 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this is available in 2026.01 do we need to hold the merge until then?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, we should not merge it until then.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Also, we decided not to label them.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I wanted to make this PR while I had everything fresh in mind and to get feedback on the error and notification text, but we will not be able to merge it for quite a while. It is not decided when it will be released yet but 2026.01 is my best bet.
Right @renetapopova , I created this PR before our last meeting, I will remove the labels.
|
This PR includes documentation updates New pages: Updated pages: |
4 participants
Product PRs:
https://github.com/neo-technology/neo4j/pull/33805
https://github.com/neo-technology/neo4j/pull/34110
This PR should not be merged until the SEARCH feature is no longer feature flagged.
Linear: part of SURF-250