This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2020-02-21
Channels
- # announcements (39)
- # architecture (7)
- # aws (9)
- # babashka (111)
- # beginners (139)
- # bristol-clojurians (1)
- # calva (47)
- # chlorine-clover (5)
- # cider (17)
- # clj-kondo (26)
- # clojars (25)
- # clojure (251)
- # clojure-berlin (1)
- # clojure-dev (5)
- # clojure-europe (22)
- # clojure-france (1)
- # clojure-hungary (6)
- # clojure-losangeles (8)
- # clojure-nl (18)
- # clojure-spec (3)
- # clojure-uk (68)
- # clojured (32)
- # clojurescript (32)
- # core-async (10)
- # core-typed (120)
- # cursive (8)
- # datascript (10)
- # datomic (11)
- # docker (2)
- # emacs (6)
- # figwheel-main (4)
- # fulcro (10)
- # graalvm (92)
- # hoplon (2)
- # instaparse (9)
- # jobs (3)
- # jobs-discuss (31)
- # joker (2)
- # kaocha (1)
- # lambdaisland (5)
- # leiningen (10)
- # luminus (1)
- # lumo (14)
- # meander (30)
- # mid-cities-meetup (1)
- # midje (1)
- # off-topic (46)
- # pathom (22)
- # perun (2)
- # re-frame (10)
- # reitit (1)
- # remote-jobs (8)
- # shadow-cljs (71)
- # spacemacs (7)
- # sql (40)
- # tools-deps (31)
- # tree-sitter (11)
- # vim (14)
- # vscode (2)
- # xtdb (5)
@iagwanderson I'm not sure it's a bug or not
but I think what's happening is that conn-from-datoms
is not the same as conn + transact!
rather, it's the same as getting all the datoms from an existing conn and giving them to another
and since an existing conn has no retractions expressed in its datom set, conn-from-datoms doesn't account for it
so maybe it's a bug, maybe not, depends on the intended semantics
I'd open an issue for it in your case and let the author chime in
if I had to bet, there isn't much of a reason to make conn-from-datoms
behave as transactions though
that would slow it down
and you can already just do transactions anyway
@filipematossilva thanks for the explanation, I will make a small reproducible case for this scenario and open an issue to debate with more concrete information