On 11/14/2018 10:35 AM, Jon Kjær Amundsen wrote:
It is not that I want it.
I just can't reproduce it even though I read it as an expected behaviour.
So I wondered if something has been changed since the warning was written,
or if I had misunderstood something.
To my knowledge, nothing has changed in this area.
If a copyField destination is stored, then I think most people would be
unhappy with the results of running an atomic update, especially if
fields related to that copyField are changed with the update.
Thanks,
Shawn
