Skip to content

transaction-isolation-levels: fix wording and grammar issues - #23642

Open
yahonda wants to merge 2 commits into
release-8.5from
clarify-transaction-statement-wording
Open

transaction-isolation-levels: fix wording and grammar issues#23642
yahonda wants to merge 2 commits into
release-8.5from
clarify-transaction-statement-wording

Conversation

@yahonda

@yahonda yahonda commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

What is changed, added or deleted? (Required)

Two EN clarity/grammar issues found while reviewing a Japanese translation of this file:

1. Ambiguous "the transaction statement" wording

The Repeatable Read section says "the transaction statement does see the effects of previous updates executed within its own transaction" — the definite noun phrase "the transaction statement" reads as if it names a specific category of statement, when the actual meaning is that a statement running within a transaction can see the effects of earlier statements in that SAME transaction (contrasted with not seeing other transactions' uncommitted or concurrently-committed changes).

Confirmed against the Chinese source (docs-cn's corresponding sentence): "对于本事务而言,事务语句可以看到之前的语句做出的修改" — literally "as far as this [own] transaction is concerned, statements [in it] can see the modifications made by previous statements". The Chinese explicitly contrasts "本事务" (this own transaction) against the earlier-mentioned "其他事务" (other transactions); the EN translation dropped that contrast, leaving an ambiguous definite noun phrase.

Reworded to make the "within its own transaction" contrast explicit:

However, within its own transaction, a statement does see the effects of updates made by previous statements in that transaction, even though those updates are not yet committed.

2. Subject-verb agreement error

"though they sharing the same name" is not a grammatical clause (a gerund cannot follow the subject "they" as the main verb). Fixed to "though they share the same name", and added the missing article before "ANSI Repeatable Read isolation level" for consistency with its other mention later in the same paragraph.

Verified against the Chinese source that the surrounding translation itself is accurate (docs-cn: "尽管名称是可重复读隔离级别,但是 TiDB 中可重复读隔离级别和 ANSI 可重复隔离级别是不同的") — only the EN grammar needed fixing, not the meaning.

Which TiDB version(s) do your changes apply to? (Required)

  • master (the latest development version)
  • v8.5 (TiDB 8.5 versions)
  • v8.4 (TiDB 8.4 versions)
  • v8.3 (TiDB 8.3 versions)
  • v8.2 (TiDB 8.2 versions)
  • v8.1 (TiDB 8.1 versions)
  • v7.5 (TiDB 7.5 versions)
  • v7.1 (TiDB 7.1 versions)
  • v6.5 (TiDB 6.5 versions)

What is the related PR or file link(s)?

  • This PR is translated from:
  • Other reference link(s): found while reviewing a Japanese translation of this file, pingcap/docs#23639

AI agent involvement

  • The changes in this PR were primarily made by an AI agent on behalf of the PR author.

Do your changes match any of the following descriptions?

  • Delete files
  • Change aliases
  • Need modification after applied to another branch
  • Might cause conflicts after applied to another branch

Summary by CodeRabbit

  • Documentation
    • Clarified Repeatable Read transaction behavior, including visibility of earlier statements’ effects and uncommitted updates within the same transaction.

…ement" wording

"The transaction statement" reads as if it names a specific category
of statement, when the intended meaning (confirmed against the
Chinese source, docs-cn's "对于本事务而言,事务语句可以看到之前的语句
做出的修改") is that a statement within a transaction can see the
effects of earlier statements in that SAME transaction, contrasted
with not seeing other transactions' uncommitted or concurrent
changes. Rewords to make the "within its own transaction" contrast
explicit.
@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot Bot added the missing-translation-status This PR does not have translation status info. label Aug 28, 2026
@ti-chi-bot

ti-chi-bot Bot commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is NOT APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by:
Once this PR has been reviewed and has the lgtm label, please assign lilin90 for approval. For more information see the Code Review Process.
Please ensure that each of them provides their approval before proceeding.

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

Details Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@ti-chi-bot ti-chi-bot Bot added the size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files. label Aug 28, 2026
@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 28, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Review Change Stack

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Path: .coderabbit.yaml

Review profile: ASSERTIVE

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: 9d363323-f632-4116-bc35-9e66b14d1a25

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between 7a0a217 and 288e32b.

📒 Files selected for processing (1)
  • transaction-isolation-levels.md

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 4 included reviews per hour; 0 remain after this review.


📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

The Repeatable Read documentation clarifies statement visibility after earlier updates in the same transaction and fixes grammar in the TiDB comparison.

Changes

Transaction Isolation Documentation

Layer / File(s) Summary
Clarify Repeatable Read documentation
transaction-isolation-levels.md
The documentation describes visibility of earlier updates, including uncommitted updates, and corrects the comparison with ANSI Repeatable Read.

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~2 minutes

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 288e3

This PR makes localized wording and grammar improvements to documentation, with no actionable merge-blocking risk remaining after normal checks and review.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 5
✅ Passed checks (5 passed)
Check name Status Explanation
Docstring Coverage ✅ Passed No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0…
Linked Issues check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check ✅ Passed Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Title check ✅ Passed The title clearly summarizes the primary changes: wording and grammar fixes in transaction-isolation-levels.md.
Description check ✅ Passed The description covers the required change summary, affected version, related PR, AI involvement, and change-type checklist. The selected version options differ from the provided template, but the int…
Full details: Docstring Coverage

Explanation

No functions found in the changed files to evaluate docstring coverage. Skipping docstring coverage check. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 0 functions across 0 files. (1 skipped: 1 unsupported.)

Full details: Description check

Explanation

The description covers the required change summary, affected version, related PR, AI involvement, and change-type checklist. The selected version options differ from the provided template, but the intended v8.5 scope is clearly identified.

✨ Finishing Touches
🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
  • Create PR with unit tests
  • Commit unit tests in branch clarify-transaction-statement-wording

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

"though they sharing the same name" is not a grammatical clause (a
gerund cannot follow the subject "they" as the main verb). Fixed to
"though they share the same name", and added the missing article
before "ANSI Repeatable Read isolation level" for consistency with
its other mention later in the same paragraph.

Verified against the Chinese source that the surrounding translation
itself is accurate (docs-cn: "尽管名称是可重复读隔离级别,但是 TiDB
中可重复读隔离级别和 ANSI 可重复隔离级别是不同的") — only the EN
grammar needed fixing, not the meaning.
@yahonda yahonda changed the title transaction-isolation-levels: clarify ambiguous transaction statement wording transaction-isolation-levels: fix wording and grammar issues Aug 28, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

missing-translation-status This PR does not have translation status info. size/XS Denotes a PR that changes 0-9 lines, ignoring generated files.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant