Another consequence of the "Pending Updates" mechanism is that the order in which updates are specified is not important. In the following example you can without any issue delete the attribute Id (pointed by $idattr), and after use $idattr/.. (the parent ITEM element) for inserting! Or you could insert first and delete after.
| Code Block | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
for $idattr in doc("data.xml")//ITEM/@Id (: selection :)
return ( (: updates :)
delete node $idattr,
insert node <ID>{string($idattr)}</ID> as first into $idattr/..
) |
But because of that, some conflicting changes can produce unpredictable results. For example two rename of the same node are conflicting, because we do not know in which order they would be applied. Other ambiguous operations: two replace of the same node, two replace value (or contents) of the same node.
The XQUF specifications take care of forbidding such ambiguous updates. An error is generated (during the apply-updates stage) when such a conflict is detected.
A bit ironically, no error is generated for meaningless but non ambiguous conflicts, for example both renaming and deleting the same node (delete node has priority over other operations).