Skip to content
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

Config schema definition of graphql server and exported config doesn't match #1177

Open
chrfritsch opened this issue Mar 5, 2021 · 1 comment

Comments

@chrfritsch
Copy link
Contributor

We have an exported config that looks like this:

langcode: en
status: true
dependencies: {  }
name: thunder_graphql
label: 'Thunder - GraphQL Server'
schema: composable
schema_configuration:
  composable:
    extensions:
      thunder_paragraphs: thunder_paragraphs
      thunder_media: thunder_media
      thunder_routing: thunder_routing
      thunder_pages: thunder_pages
persisted_queries_settings: {  }
endpoint: /graphql
debug_flag: 0
caching: true
batching: true

There are two problems with this config:

  1. The schema_configuration doesn't match the schema definition
    schema_configuration:
      type: 'graphql.schema.[%parent.schema]'

The schema definition needs to be this to match::

    schema_configuration:
      type: mapping
      label: 'Schema config'
      mapping:
        composable:
          label: Composable schema
          type: graphql.schema.composable

Or the exported config structure has to change.

  1. The sequence in graphql.schema.composable is defined as boolean but it's exported as strings
schema_configuration:
  composable:
    extensions:
      thunder_paragraphs: thunder_paragraphs
      thunder_media: thunder_media
      thunder_routing: thunder_routing
      thunder_pages: thunder_pages

I think that should be changed to

schema_configuration:
  composable:
    extensions:
      thunder_paragraphs: true
      thunder_media: true
      thunder_routing: true
      thunder_pages: true
@alesbencina
Copy link

alesbencina commented Oct 26, 2022

I have the same situation, I don't know if it's possible to have dynamic key from a parent. That might solve the issue

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants