Fixed fragment applicability to union types; no interfaces in unions #592
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
milessabin
changed the title
|
@umazalakain I've sent you a collaborator invite ... please accept it if you like to review this 😄 |
umazalakain
approved these changes
Apr 10, 2024
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agreed that it might be worth implementing a fragmentApplies that does not rely on the subtyping relation <:<. In particular, https://spec.graphql.org/October2021/#sec-Fragment-spread-is-possible outlines a seemingly simple solution.
|
alternative approach in https://github.com/typelevel/grackle/tree/fragments-by-possible-types |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Fixes
fragmentAppliesso that it now accepts union types for a fragment type condition.There are some lurking issues in the definition/use of
<:<for unions which I don't want to address right now ... I'll create a separate issue to track that and pick them up later (#593)In the process of exploring other test scenarios I realized that the GraphQL spec explicitly excludes interface types as being members of unions. I've modified the schema validator to check for that now, and fixed a couple of tests which became invalid as a result.
Fixes #590.