## Test plan
read it
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: aberkan, dnerdy, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved by: aberkan
Checks: ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint
Pull request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/58
## Summary:
As Mark pointed out in a review where I realized that the *example* had
a bogus config key (which I hadn't noticed earlier because it was just
using the default value), we should probably do a strict-unmarshal;
there's no reason you should have random extra keys in your config and
if you do it's probably a mistake. (Or maybe you're running a too-old
version of genqlient for your codebase, which you probably also want to
know.) Now we do.
## Test plan:
- `make check`
- in webapp, `go mod edit -replace github.com/Khan/genqlient=../genqlient`
then `make genqlient` produces no diffs (except go.mod/go.sum).
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: dnerdy, aberkan, csilvers, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved by: dnerdy
Checks: ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint
Pull request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/55
## Summary:
We have lots of tests covering codegen, but not a lot that actually run
the code. For things where all we do is generate types, that's (mostly)
fine (especially now that we actually build the code), but as we
generate more nontrivial non-type code we need to actually run it.
So I wrote some integration tests that spin up a little gqlgen
server, and make calls to it; we can add more over time especially as
the JSON marshalling logic gets complex (to support fragments).
They're more work to write than the snapshot tests, but of course they
can test a lot more.
In addition to gqlgen, I pulled in testify assert/require, because I
really wanted to be able to use assert.Equal and such for these. I
didn't bother converting existing tests, although I assume they will
become useful elsewhere in time. Both gqlgen and testify are of course
only used in tests.
Fixes#21 and #24.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/21
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/24
## Test plan:
make check
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: aberkan, dnerdy, benjaminjkraft, csilvers, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved by: aberkan, dnerdy
Checks: ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint
Pull request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/50
## Summary:
It would be nice to have some linting beyond `go vet`! Now we do. I
started by copying the config from Khan/webapp. I did remove a couple
of staticcheck checks that I didn't feel were useful. (Note also that
exportloopref is the replacement for scopelint in newer golangci-lint.)
Included are all the needed lint fixes; most are stylistic but the
changes in the example are a (minor) bugfix.
Fixes#22.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/22
## Test plan:
make check
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: aberkan, dnerdy, benjaminjkraft, csilvers, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved by: aberkan, dnerdy
Checks: ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ Lint
Pull request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/49
Craig pointed out this is a bit confusing when you don't have all the
fields. Now we say so, but still include the type's description in case
it's useful.
Fixes#37.
