-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
More strict typing for Introspection Schema types #1082
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
5 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
552cf19
Make Introspection types read-only, split Input vs Output types where…
mjmahone 82e1533
Lint fixes
mjmahone 07235a1
NonNull and List keep their TypeRef names
mjmahone 983160a
Remove typehints I was using to track down flow failure
mjmahone 8026622
Make suggested changes
mjmahone File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure if these types should be exact types since that doesn't actually describe what is returned from the server - all fields are queried on each possible type, so the properties exist and are null.
That might be okay as just a balance between correctness and usability, but we should keep an eye on this in case we need to remove the exact types in the future.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'd prefer exact types for now, as it's way easier to pretend fields that are always null don't exist. If we have to add a bunch of null fields, we might want a conversion from
IntrospectionTypetoLinkedTypeto give us the more-restrictive typing (could also do things like enforceofTypeis non-null onListandNonNullable).Basically, if we need to relax this, then we probably want two different sets of types:
IntrospectionType=> things coming over-the-wire in an introspection query. Does not differentiate fromInputandOutputtypes, but is a 1:1 data representation.LinkedType=> type system description using reference types that is a validated version of what came down from the wire.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think it's fine to keep it exact types for now - just wanted to highlight the disconnect so we're aware in the future