Skip to content
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

Split requirements for inlining to make more understandable #9889

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

simonsabin
Copy link
Contributor

The current list of requirements is a mixture of requirements for the function definition and requirements for the context it is being used in. There are also duplicate requirements in the examples section.

This change splits the list into requirements for the function AND another list for the requirements of the context. It also removes the duplicate "examples" and refers users to the concise list.

The current list of requirements is a mixture of requirements for the function definition and requirements for the context it is being used in.
There are also duplicate requirements in the examples section. 

This change splits the list into requirements for the function AND another list for the requirements of the context. 
It also removes the duplicate "examples" and refers users to the concise list.
Copy link
Contributor

@simonsabin : Thanks for your contribution! The author(s) have been notified to review your proposed change.

Copy link
Contributor

Learn Build status updates of commit 769ed9f:

✅ Validation status: passed

File Status Preview URL Details
docs/relational-databases/user-defined-functions/scalar-udf-inlining.md ✅Succeeded

For more details, please refer to the build report.

For any questions, please:

@Court72
Copy link
Contributor

Court72 commented Sep 24, 2024

@s-r-k

Can you review the proposed changes?

Important: When the changes are ready for publication, adding a #sign-off comment is the best way to signal that the PR is ready for the review team to merge.

#label:"aq-pr-triaged"
@MicrosoftDocs/public-repo-pr-review-team

@prmerger-automator prmerger-automator bot added the aq-pr-triaged tracking label for the PR review team label Sep 24, 2024
@rwestMSFT rwestMSFT self-assigned this Oct 7, 2024
@rwestMSFT rwestMSFT self-requested a review October 15, 2024 19:06
@rwestMSFT
Copy link
Contributor

@simonsabin Thanks, we're doing a separate internal PR to incorporate your changes, and you'll still get credit. When that PR merges, this one will automatically close.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants