-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 114
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Add a mechanism to specify options on input-type fields (#124)
## Summary: This has been a bit of a thorn since we started using genqlient in production: just as you might want to specify, say, `omitempty` on an argument, you might equally want to specify it on an input-type field. But there's no obvious syntax to do that, because the input-type field does not appear in the query (only the schema) so there's nowhere to put the `# @genqlient` directive. This commit, at last, fixes that problem, via a new option, `for`, which you use in an option applied to the entire operation (or fragment), and says, "actually, apply this directive to the given field, not the entire operation". (It's mainly useful for input types, but I allowed it for output types too; I could imagine it being convenient if you want to say you always use a certain type or type-name for a certain field.) It works basically like you expect: the inline options take precedence over `for` take precedence over query-global options. The implementation was fairly straightforward once I did a little refactoring, mostly in the directive-parsing and directive-merging (which are now combined, since merging is now a bit more complicated). With that in place, and extended to support `for`, we need only add the same wiring to input-fields that we have for other places you can put directives. I did not attempt to solve the issue I've now documented as #123, wherein conflicting options can lead to confusing behavior; the new `for` is a new and perhaps more attractive avenue to cause it but the issue remains the same and requires nontrivial refactoring (described in the issue) to solve. (The breakage isn't horrible for the most part; the option will just apply, or not apply, where you don't expect it to.) But while applying that logic, I noticed a problem, which is that we were inconsistently cascading operation-level options down to input-object fields. (I think this came out of the fact that initially I thought to cascade them, then realized that this could cause problems like #123 and intended to walk them back, but then accidentally only "fixed" it for `omitempty`. I guess until this change, operation-level options were rare enough, and input-field options messy enough, that no one noticed.) So in this commit I bring things back into consistency, by saying that they do cascade: with at least a sketch of a path forward to solve #123 via better validation, I think that's by far the clearest behavior. Issue: #14 ## Test plan: make check Author: benjaminjkraft Reviewers: csilvers, StevenACoffman, benjaminjkraft, aberkan, dnerdy, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo Required Reviewers: Approved By: csilvers, StevenACoffman 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: #124
- Loading branch information
1 parent
9ef7636
commit dd719de
Showing
11 changed files
with
343 additions
and
91 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains 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 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 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 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 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
Oops, something went wrong.