-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
[RFC] Proposed change to directive location introspection #317
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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 hidden or 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.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The list of locations should also include
DirectiveLocation.FRAGMENT_DEFINITION
according to the tests and previous behavior, isn't it? (https://github.com/graphql/graphql-js/blob/master/src/execution/__tests__/directives-test.js#L271-L314)There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just checked it in the spec:
If I understand correctly
DirectiveLocation.FRAGMENT_DEFINITION
is not allowed forinclude
andskip
directives anymore... Now I wonder why mentioned tests are green.Is it still a valid query?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I made a bit of research (probably should have done from the beginning :) ) and turns out that this query:
is indeed invalid query, at least it will not pass the query validation. Tests are green because
execute
(which is used in this test) does not validate the queries and executes them directly. Execution engine on the other hand still supportsinclude
andskip
directives on fragment definitions, even though they are no longer allowed to be used on fragment definitions.@leebyron can you please confirm this? Is it intended behavior? I feel that it's not 100% safe to interpret directives if they are used in invalid locations. In my case I decided to completely exclude fragments definitions which use
include
andskip
directives, regardless ofif
argument (semantically in this case I consider the whole fragment definition to be broken/invalid because of the incorrect usage of the directive):https://github.com/sangria-graphql/sangria/blob/master/src/test/scala/sangria/execution/DirectivesSpec.scala#L254-L304