angrykoala
angrykoala
For QuantifiedRelationships. The syntax could be what you have there, alternatively, it could be part of the options for the relationship (like `length`) so: ```js new Cypher.Pattern().related().quantified("+").to() ``` vs. ```js...
@tomhayford We finally got around releasing QPP on version 1.19.0. Hope this solves your use case nicely
This also requires `hasLabel` and `hasType` methods to be available in variables
There are 2 approaches to this: * Make `Expr` a class with an `index` method (this is probably breaking) * Add an `index` function that accepts an `Expr` and index...
Hi @jbhurruth Until this is fixed on our side, you should be able to use a string instead of an enum as a workaround
Because unions are inherently separate entities (not supposed to be shared, that would be interfaces) a query asking an entity to be both items of an union would be incorrect...
Actually, after reviewing more carefully, @Liam-Doodson is right, these kind of operations can be confusing and the logic should be changed I'm going to close this issue in favor of...
This will be easier to fix after we move update to the new translation layer
This is no longer an issue in version 7.2.10, the linked PR validate the correct schema generation
This is still happening in 7.0 alpha with the following setup: ```graphql type Movie @node { title: String! actors: [Actor!]! @relationship(type: "ACTED_IN", direction: IN, properties: "ActedIn") } type ActedIn @relationshipProperties...