Fix a bug in type-name collapsing introduced by #71 #110
Conversation
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
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 Reviewers: csilvers, marksandstrom, steve, mahtab, adam, miguel, jvoll
benjaminjkraft
requested review from
aberkan,
csilvers,
dnerdy,
jvoll,
mahtabsabet,
MiguelCastillo and
StevenACoffman
csilvers
approved these changes
Sep 22, 2021
|
This is merged into which updated it to |
|
(Ah, nope, f729 is not the latest commit. I wonder what I have to do to get |
|
Ah, I got it by doing |
|
Possibly just a caching issue? Specifying the commit should work anyway. |
|
The change looks good to me. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Summary:
We typically name our types
OperationFieldTypeFieldType, but if atype'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
Before #71, and again after this change, we'll generate
ForcePhantomForcePhantomErrorforerror; before we'd generateForcePhantomForcePhantomErrorForcePhantomError.Issue: #109
Test plan:
make tesc