There is not much to argue, when your point is based on a misunderstanding. > You nest transactional statements, not the calls to atomic. The happy-path for an

There is not much to argue, when your point is based on a misunderstanding. > You nest transactional statements, not the calls to atomic. The happy-path for an atomic is that it will commit; it should be obvious a priori that something that commits cannot be in the codepath that can be rolled back. This makes absolutely no sense with my above correction.