## Summary:
In practice, at Khan at least, this is easy to mess up when writing
mocks, because you write the mock by looking at the query, and the query
doesn't say it's asking for `__typename` (because genqlient
automatically adds that). A sufficiently-smart mocking library might be
able to fix that, or detect it at least, but in any case, we can give a
clearer error.
I also removed an unrelated TODO that was done.
Issue: https://khanacademy.slack.com/archives/C01120CNCS0/p1630019788014000
## Test plan:
make check
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/68
## Summary:
Right now, if you make a query like `{ myInterface { field } }`, you
have to type-switch on all the possible implementations of `myInterface`
to get at `field`. Now, we generate getter-methods (e.g. `GetField`),
to make that access easier. Of course this only applies to shared
fields (which for now are the only ones, but once we support fragments
will no longer be).
This also includes a small change to the way we generate type-names for
interfaces: we no longer include the name of the concrete type in the
interface we propagate forward, so we generate
`MyInterfaceMyFieldMyType`, not `MyInterfaceMyImplMyFieldMyType`, in the
case where you have an interface `MyInterface` implemented by `MyImpl`
(and maybe other types) with field `myField: MyType`. This is necessary
so the getter method returns a well-defined type, and also probably
convenient for calling code. It will have to get a little bit more
complicated once we support fragments, where you could have two
implementing types with identically-named fields of different types, but
I think it'll be easiest to figure out how to deal with that when
implementing fragments.
While I was in the area, I added to the interface doc-comment a list of
the implementations. (In GraphQL, we're guaranteed to know them all
assuming our schema is up to date.)
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/8
## Test plan:
make check
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: benjaminjkraft, 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/57
## Summary:
In #52, I added support for interface types, but with the simplifying
restriction (among others) that the user must request the field
`__typename`. In this commit, I remove this restriction.
The basic idea is simple: we preprocess the query to add `__typename`.
The implementation isn't much more complicated! Although it required
some new wiring in a few places.
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/56
## Summary:
In this commit I remove one of the limitations of our support for
interfaces, from #52, by adding support for list-of-interface fields.
This was surprisingly complex! The issue is that, as before, it's the
containing type that has to do all the glue work -- and it's that glue
work that is complicated by list-of-interface fields.
All in all, it's not that much new code, and by far the hard part is
just 20 lines in the UnmarshalJSON template (which come with almost
twice as many lines of comments to explain them). It may be easiest to
start by reading some of the generated code, and then read the template.
I also added support for such fields with `pointer: true` specified,
such that the type is `[][]...[]*MyInterface`, although I don't know why
you would want that. This does *not* allow e.g. `*[]*[][]*MyInterface`;
that would require a way to specify it (see #16) but also add some extra
complexity (as we'd have to actually walk the type-unwrap chain
properly, instead of just counting the number of slices and whether
there's a pointer).
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/8
## Test plan:
make check
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: dnerdy, benjaminjkraft, 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, ⌛ Lint, ⌛ Test (1.17), ⌛ Test (1.16), ⌛ Test (1.15), ⌛ Test (1.14), ⌛ Test (1.13)
Pull request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/54
