Joshua Send

So it does sound like the data is corrupt somehow, have you managed to track down the duplicate `,`?

Hi - There's no reason it shouldn't be done, we'll have to get around to implementing it :) the syntax should already support it in the `"attributes"` section actually...

Running into this as well - it means we can't split out test dependencies very well! I wonder if any of the developers could provide any updates/pointers on how to...

Yes @haikalpribadi that's what the colons are for :D I have to get to that next

**Internal changes** A `?` indicates not yet fully discussed. **TypeQL** - [ ] Fix backslash escaping ? - [ ] Allow modifiers on `match` inside of a delete/insert query to...

Thank you for the request and the link to neo's resources! The approach is surely interesting and we should consider it - we haven't built much in the direction of...

@cxdorn by the way, my point about enforcing cardinality constraints as a separate annotation versus a general 'pattern' being easier to do is such: If we have a specific annotation...

Also implementation complexity, since each transaction has independent snapshots of data and for basic cardinality we only have to 'share' counts of things that have been changed across the snapshot...

But again, there might be an elegant solution where the simple cardinality constraint emerges from the constraint implementation with the same efficiency & simplicity

Is what you're proposing similar to the idea of tieing bindings into a TypeQL query: `TypeQLQuery.withBounds(conceptMap)` ? This would return the original query with IIDs and attribute values and types...