Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Browse files
Browse the repository at this point in the history
## Summary: We typically name our types `OperationFieldTypeFieldType`, but if a type's name matches the preceding field-name, we omit the type-name. In #71 I changed the behavior such that we no longer do that in the case where the type's name matches some suffix of the name-so-far that's longer than just the leaf field-name. This was semi-intentional; I assumed it didn't matter and would be more predictable this way. But it turns out that was a feature, both in the sense that almost any change to the type-name-generator is breaking, and in the sense that it made the names uglier. Plus, now that we have better conflict-detection (#94), the possibility that some tricksy type-names could cause problems is no longer as much of an issue, so we can be a little less careful here. (Although I think this is no less safe than before; the field-names are the important part.) So in this commit I revert the change. Specifically, this comes up a lot at Khan where we do ``` mutation ForcePhantom { forcePhantom { # type: ForcePhantom error { ... } # type: ForcePhantomError } } ``` Before #71, and again after this change, we'll generate `ForcePhantomForcePhantomError` for `error`; before we'd generate `ForcePhantomForcePhantomErrorForcePhantomError`. Issue: #109 ## Test plan: make tesc Author: benjaminjkraft Reviewers: csilvers, aberkan, dnerdy, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo, StevenACoffman Required Reviewers: Approved By: csilvers Checks: ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Lint Pull Request URL: #110
- Loading branch information