correction for drop graph, collection handling

[cw00dw0rd]

The wording of comment indicated supplying true results in the collections being preserved but the opposite is true. It might make more sense to update the comment but wasn't sure certain on the intent of the example.

[Simran-B]

This is indeed confusing. I think the point was to show that, even if you tell _drop() to delete the underlying collections, they will still be around if you remove them from the graph definition prior to dropping the graph. In other words, the example de-couples the collections from the graph, then drops it, but because the collections aren't part of the named graph anymore, they will not be deleted despite the true argument.

graph._deleteEdgeDefinition("edges"); graph._removeVertexCollection("vertices"); graph_module._drop("myGraph", true); // does not drop any collections

The example makes sense, assuming that it wants to show the particular case of collections being removed from the graph definition before dropping the graph, but it could use a better description. How about the following?

graph._deleteEdgeDefinition("edges"); // remove edge collection from graph definition graph._removeVertexCollection("vertices"); // remove vertex collection from graph definition graph_module._drop("myGraph", true); // does not drop any collections because there are none left in the graph definition

[cw00dw0rd]

Thank you for the clarification and I see now the original example was true just a little confusing. I have added your suggestion as I think that helps clarify it.

[Simran-B]

Removed changes to EoL versions from the PR, fixed indentation, and slightly reworded the descriptions.