You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We have 2 issues which are related to bulk handling.
They both could be "fixed" by having bulk size of 1.
They are also related to each other by their expected behavior: when we have a bulk with commands with duplicate Identifier (in this case, NAME), the user may expect these commands to take effect in order.
Bulk example:
NAME,FIELD1,FIELD2
"gal","a","x",
"gal","b",,
If the bulk size was 1, then the final result for entity "gal" would be: FIELD1:"b", FIELD2:"x".
However, today, the order is not guaranteed.
Moreover, if we have two commands with same Identifier ("gal"), it can also mess up any code that deals with maps where the key is Identifier (we suspect to have an issue but we didn't reproduce it yet).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We have 2 issues which are related to bulk handling.
They both could be "fixed" by having bulk size of 1.
They are also related to each other by their expected behavior: when we have a bulk with commands with duplicate Identifier (in this case, NAME), the user may expect these commands to take effect in order.
Bulk example:
If the bulk size was 1, then the final result for entity "gal" would be:
FIELD1:"b", FIELD2:"x"
.However, today, the order is not guaranteed.
Moreover, if we have two commands with same Identifier ("gal"), it can also mess up any code that deals with maps where the key is Identifier (we suspect to have an issue but we didn't reproduce it yet).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: