## Summary:
When adding support for interfaces, I did not do the type-names as I
intended: they came out to be `MyFieldMyType`, not
`MyInterfaceMyFieldMyType`, which is inconsistent, but not strictly
wrong. But once supporting fragments, this is also now incorrect.
(Exactly why is described in the comments inline.) In this commit, in
any case, I fix it.
To do that, I finally did the last of the refactors I've been hoping to
do but unable to successfully implement, which is to make the type-name
and type-name-prefix management clearer. In the past it was kind of
spread out, and each caller would have to pass the right name into
`convertDefinition`, which go quite unwieldy. Now, the case that really
wanted that -- the operation toplevel -- just does it own thing; and the
main name-generation code is factored out into a separate file with
tests, and with a long comment that goes into all the details of the
algorithm that the design-doc didn't cover. (I even had some fun using
a linked list to implement the prefix-stack!)
This allowed me to fix the above bug fairly easily -- actually the fix
was pretty much automatic once I understood how to organize things.
There is one change which is that if your query name is unexported, we
no longer do the same with the input-type names; it's unclear to me if
anyone will actually care about this behavior (Khan always makes the
queries exported) but if they did it was very inconsistent (only at the
query toplevel, and only for input-objects, not enums), so we can
reimplement it properly if that comes up. As a bonus fix, we now better
handle the case where your type-names are lowercase, which is legal if
nonstandard GraphQL.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/8
## Test plan:
make tesc
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: dnerdy, benjaminjkraft, aberkan, 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/71
🖍 _This is an audit!_ 🖍
## Summary:
These got broken by the merge.
## Test plan:
make check
Author: benjaminjkraft
Auditors: aberkan, csilvers, dnerdy, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved by:
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/72
## Summary:
In this commit I add support for inline fragments
(`... on MyType { fields }`) to genqlient. This will make interfaces a
lot more useful! In future commits I'll add named fragments, for which
we'll generate slightly different types, as discussed in DESIGN.md.
In general, implementing the flattening approach described in DESIGN.md
was... surprisingly easy. All we have to do is recurse on applicable
fragments when generating our selection-set. The refactor to
selection-set handling this encouraged was, I think, quite beneficial.
It did reveal two tricky pre-existing issues.
One issue is that GraphQL allows for duplicate selections, as long as
they match. (In practice, this is only useful in the context of
fragments, although GraphQL allows it even without.) I decided to handle
the simple case (duplicate leaf fields; we just deduplicate) but leave
to the future the complex cases where we need to merge different
sub-selections (now #64). For now we just forbid that; we can see how
much it comes up.
The other issue is that we are generating type-names incorrectly for
interface types; I had intended to do `MyInterfaceMyFieldMyType` for
shared fields and `MyImplMyFieldMyType` for non-shared ones, but instead
I did `MyFieldMyType`, which is inconsistent already and can result in
conflicts in the presence of fragments. I'm going to fix this in a
separate commit, though, because it's going to require some refactoring
and is irrelevant to the main logic of this commit; I left some TODOs in
the tests related to this.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/8
## Test plan:
make check
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: dnerdy, aberkan, 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/65
