Skip to content

[pull] main from supermemoryai:main - #447

Merged
pull[bot] merged 1 commit into
code:mainfrom
supermemoryai:main
Aug 6, 2026
Merged

[pull] main from supermemoryai:main#447
pull[bot] merged 1 commit into
code:mainfrom
supermemoryai:main

Conversation

@pull

@pull pull Bot commented Aug 6, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

See Commits and Changes for more details.


Created by pull[bot] (v2.0.0-alpha.4)

Can you help keep this open source service alive? 💖 Please sponsor : )

…ly) (#1367)

### TL;DR

Documents the new `ids` parameter for the `forget-matching` endpoint, allowing exact memory deletion without semantic search.

### What changed?

The `forget-matching` endpoint now accepts either a `query` (semantic search-based forgetting) or an explicit `ids` list (direct deletion by memory ID) — one or the other must be provided. The docs have been updated to reflect this:

- The `query` parameter is now marked as `one of*` rather than required, and `ids` is introduced as an alternative with the same mutual-exclusivity constraint.
- `threshold` is clarified as applying to `query` mode only.
- Code examples for both JavaScript and cURL now show the recommended two-step pattern: run a `dryRun` with `query`, then apply using the `ids` returned from the preview — avoiding drift if the container changes between steps.
- A new `<Tip>` block explains why passing `ids` on the apply step produces a more deterministic delete than re-running the `query`.

### How to test?

1. Call `forget-matching` with `dryRun: true` and a `query` to retrieve candidate `id`s.
2. Re-call with `dryRun: false` and the `ids` from step 1 to confirm only those exact memories are forgotten.
3. Verify that passing `ids` belonging to a different `containerTag` are ignored.
4. Confirm that providing both `query` and `ids`, or neither, returns an appropriate validation error.

### Why make this change?

Re-running a `query` on the apply step can produce different results if the container was modified between the preview and the apply. Exposing `ids` as a first-class parameter lets callers pin the delete to exactly the set they reviewed, making bulk forgetting safer and more predictable.
@pull pull Bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 6, 2026
@pull pull Bot added the ⤵️ pull label Aug 6, 2026
@pull
pull Bot merged commit 069b8c3 into code:main Aug 6, 2026
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant