## Summary:
In this commit I refactor the argument-generation logic to move most of
the code out of the template and into the type-generator. This logic
predates #51, and I didn't think to update it there, but I think it
benefits from similar treatment, for similar reasons.
Specifically, the main change is to treat variables as another struct
type we can generate, rather than handling them inline as a
`map[string]interface{}`. Users still pass them the same way, but
instead of putting them into a `map[string]interface{}` and JSONifying
that, we generate a struct and put them there.
This turns out to simplify things quite a lot, because we already have a
lot of code to generate types. Notably, the omitempty code goes from a
dozen lines to basically two, and fixes a bug (#43) in the process,
because now that we have a struct, `json.Marshal` will do our work for
us! (And, once we have syntax for it (#14), we'll be able to handle
field-level omitempty basically for free.) More importantly, it will
simplify custom marshalers (#38, forthcoming) significantly, since we do
all that logic at the containing-struct level, but will need to apply it
to arguments.
It does require two breaking changes:
1. For folks implementing the `graphql.Client` API (rather than just
calling `NewClient`): we now pass them variables as an `interface{}`
rather than a `map[string]interface{}`. For most callers, including
Khan/webapp, this is basically a one-line change to the signature of
their `MakeRequest`, and it should be a lot more future-proof.
2. genqlient's handling of the `omitempty` option has changed to match
that of `encoding/json`, in particular it now never considers structs
"empty". The difference was never intentional (I just didn't realize
that behavior of `encoding/json`); arguably our behavior was more
useful but I think that's outweighed by the value of consistency with
`encoding/json` as well as the simpler and more correct
implementation (fixing #43 is actually quite nontrivial otherwise).
Once we have custom unmarshaler support (#38), users will be able to
map a zero value to JSON null if they wish, which is mostly if not
entirely equivalent for GraphQL's purposes.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/38
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/43
## Test plan:
make check
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: StevenACoffman, 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, ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14)
Pull Request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/103
## Summary:
We typically name our types `OperationFieldTypeFieldType`, but if a
type's name matches the preceding field-name, we omit the type-name.
In #71 I changed the behavior such that we no longer do that in the case
where the type's name matches some suffix of the name-so-far that's
longer than just the leaf field-name.
This was semi-intentional; I assumed it didn't matter and would be more
predictable this way. But it turns out that was a feature, both in the
sense that almost any change to the type-name-generator is breaking, and
in the sense that it made the names uglier. Plus, now that we have
better conflict-detection (#94), the possibility that some tricksy
type-names could cause problems is no longer as much of an issue, so we
can be a little less careful here. (Although I think this is no less
safe than before; the field-names are the important part.) So in this
commit I revert the change.
Specifically, this comes up a lot at Khan where we do
```
mutation ForcePhantom {
forcePhantom { # type: ForcePhantom
error { ... } # type: ForcePhantomError
}
}
```
Before #71, and again after this change, we'll generate
`ForcePhantomForcePhantomError` for `error`; before we'd generate
`ForcePhantomForcePhantomErrorForcePhantomError`.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/109
## Test plan:
make tesc
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: csilvers, aberkan, dnerdy, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo, StevenACoffman
Required Reviewers:
Approved By: csilvers
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/110
## Summary:
There's a lot these days! I got most of it from the GitHub docs [1], as
well as looking at other projects. I'll probably hold off on landing
this until a couple more things land, then land this and tag v0.1.0.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/communities
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/35
## Test plan: view in github UI
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: jvoll, StevenACoffman, aberkan, dnerdy, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved By: jvoll, StevenACoffman
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/96
