Skip to content

docs: fix enum guidance typo #584

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Open
Rohan5commit wants to merge 1 commit into
base: vNext
Choose a base branch
from
Open

docs: fix enum guidance typo #584

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion graph/patterns/enums.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ By using an evolvable enum, instead, all we need to do is to add new members:
</EnumType>
```

Similarly speaking, if you find yourself using a `nullable` Enum, that is a indication that maybe what you are trying to model is something that has 3 states and an enum is more appropraite. For instance, let's assume we have a boolean property called `syncEnabled`, where `null` means that the value is undefined and inherited from the general tenant configuration. Instead of modelling like a boolean:
Similarly speaking, if you find yourself using a `nullable` Enum, that is a indication that maybe what you are trying to model is something that has 3 states and an enum is more appropriate. For instance, let's assume we have a boolean property called `syncEnabled`, where `null` means that the value is undefined and inherited from the general tenant configuration. Instead of modelling like a boolean:
Copy link

Copilot AI Apr 27, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In this sentence there are still a couple of typos/grammar issues: "that is a indication" should be "that is an indication", and "modelling" is inconsistent with the rest of the patterns docs (which use "modeling"). Consider correcting both while you’re here since this line is already being edited.

Suggested change
Similarly speaking, if you find yourself using a `nullable` Enum, that is a indication that maybe what you are trying to model is something that has 3 states and an enum is more appropriate. For instance, let's assume we have a boolean property called `syncEnabled`, where `null` means that the value is undefined and inherited from the general tenant configuration. Instead of modelling like a boolean:
Similarly speaking, if you find yourself using a `nullable` Enum, that is an indication that maybe what you are trying to model is something that has 3 states and an enum is more appropriate. For instance, let's assume we have a boolean property called `syncEnabled`, where `null` means that the value is undefined and inherited from the general tenant configuration. Instead of modeling like a boolean:

Copilot uses AI. Check for mistakes.

```xml
<Property Name="syncEnabled" Type="Edm.Boolean" Nullable="true"/>
Expand Down
Loading