Lint is failing with some inscrutable panic (on a commit with no code
changes). Let's try bumping the version in case they fixed it.
Additionally, the new version's github action uses Go 1.19, which means
it pulls in gofmt updates to match the new [doc-comment formatting rules][1].
So I added Go 1.19 to our list of versions to test (fixes#216)
and updated some of our doc-comments to format better in the
new world (mostly using the new link syntax).
[1]: https://go.dev/doc/comment
Test plan: make lint
Current implementation always uses POST as the transport mechanism. Adding GET support enables usage of GET queries for caching simply via URL.
Some notes:
- I left the existing API for creating a new client as is, but the implementation could be much cleaner by introducing some sort of configuration struct when creating a new client
- The construction of the query parameters follows the logic from Apollo's client implementation, which can be found here https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/blob/8beb4820edc6352996e08f7f73bde3573f1eb666/src/link/http/rewriteURIForGET.ts
- Updated integration tests to use both sets of clients. Updating the tests to use a test suite would be cleaner
This enables accessing the Extensions field, as defined in the response
format: https://spec.graphql.org/October2021/#sec-Response-Format
Extensions can be enabled using configuration option use_extensions.
This will change the return parameters of the generated client
functions. Making it a breaking change if enabled.
Since extensions are untyped as defined in the spec, the Client will
return an interface of type map[string]interface{}.
## Summary:
When genqlient generates output types, it generates whatever code is
necessary to unmarshal them. Conversely, when it generates input types,
it generates whatever code is necessary to marshal. This is all that's
needed for genqlient itself: it never needs to marshal output types or
unmarshal input types.
But maybe you do! (For example, to put the responses in a cache, which
is the use case that @csilvers hit at Khan, although there are others
one can imagine.) While we can't support every serialization format you
might want (at least not without adding plugins or some such), it's not
unreasonable to expect that since genqlient can read JSON, it can write
it too. Sadly, in the past this was not true for types requiring custom
unmarshaling logic, for several reasons.
In this commit I implement logic to always write both marshalers and
unmarshalers whenever they're needed to be able to correctly round-trip
the types, even though genqlient doesn't do so. I wasn't starting from
scratch, since of course we already write both marshalers and
unmarshalers in some cases. But this ended up requiring surprisingly
large changes on the marshaling side, mostly to correctly support
embedding (which we use for named fragments).
Specifically, as the comments in `types.go` discuss, the most difficult
issue is spreads with duplicate fields, which translate to Go embedded
fields which end up hidden from the json-marshaler. Ultimately, I had
to do things quite differently from unmarshaling, and essentially
flatten the type when we write marshaler. But in the end it's not so
ugly -- indeed arguably it's cleaner! Mainly it's just different.
One thing to note is that we do marshal `__typename` based on
what we know about the types; users need not fill it in (and if they
do we'll ignore it). This seemed to me to be a better UX, and
didn't add much complexity.
In general, I begin to wonder whether using `encoding/json` at all is
really right for genqlient: we're doing a lot of work to appease it,
despite knowing what our types look like. I think it would still be a
significant increase in lines of code to roll our own, but that code
would perhaps be simpler, and would surely be faster (although if we
just want the speed gains we could use another JSON-generator library,
see also #47). Anyway, something to think about in the future.
## Test plan:
make tesc
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: csilvers, StevenACoffman, benjaminjkraft, dnerdy, aberkan, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved By: StevenACoffman, dnerdy
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: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/120
