## 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 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
## Summary:
In this commit I begin the journey to add the long-awaited support for
interfaces (part of #8). Well, it's not the beginning: I already had
some half-written broken code around. But it's the first fully
functional support, and especially, the first *tested* support; it's
probably best to review the nontrivially-changed code as if it were new.
Conceptually, the code so far is pretty simple: we generate an interface
type, and the implementations. (That code is in fact mostly unchanged.)
The complexity comes in because encoding/json doesn't know how to
unmarshal that. So we have to add an UnmarshalJSON method, which
actually has to be on the types with interface-type fields, that knows
how. I factored it into two methods, such that that UnmarshalJSON
method is just glue, and then there's a separate function, corresponding
to each interface-type, that actually does all the work. (If only one
could just write it as an actual method!) The method uses the same
trick suggested to me by a few others in another context to deserialize
all but one field, then handle that field specially, which is discussed
in the code.
This still has some limitations, which will be lifted in future commits:
- it doesn't allow for list-of-interface fields
- it requires that you manually ask for `__typename`
- it doesn't support fragments, i.e. you can only query for interface
fields, not concrete-type-specific ones
But it works, even in integration tests, which is progress!
As a part of this, I added a proper config option for the "allow broken
features" flag, since I need to be able to set it from the integration
tests which are in a separate package (and actually shell out via `go
generate`). I also renamed what was to be the first case
(InterfaceNoFragments), and replaced it with a further-simplified
version (avoiding list-of-interface fields.
[1] https://github.com/benjaminjkraft/notes/blob/master/go-json-interfaces.md
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/8
## Test plan:
make tesc
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, ✅ 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/52
## Summary:
I've felt for a while that types.go is way too confusing, and as I
started to implement some of the more complex cases of generating
interface-types, the cracks were really starting to show. Luckily, I
also finally realized how to fix it: we need to separate the process of
traversing the GraphQL operation and schema to decide what types to
generate from the process of actually generating those types. This
requires an extra set of intermediate data structures, but I think it
makes things quite a lot easier to understand -- and, importantly, it
means that the code-generation doesn't need to go in the order we
traverse the query/schema.
So in this commit, I did that huge refactor. It's probably best to just
review types.go and traverse.go as if they were new; the old code was
quite hard to understand and the new code will hopefully make a lot more
sense. (And to that end, review comments about what could be organized
better or needs more documentation are very much in order, even for code
that is mostly unchanged.)
This does introduce one bug, sort of, which is that rather than
generating broken code for list-of-interface fields, we generate no code
at all. (A TODO in unmarshal.go describes why.) I'll fix this when I
add support for those fields. (It's all behind the AllowBrokenFeatures
flag, anyway.) Otherwise, the only changes to generated code are that a
few methods are ordered differently, because we now generate the
implements-interface methods with the interface, rather than the
implementations, as it's much simpler that way. (In GraphQL, unlike Go,
we know the list of all possible implementations of each interface, so
this is possible.)
## Test plan:
golangci-lint run ./... && go test ./...
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: dnerdy, benjaminjkraft, aberkan, csilvers, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved by: dnerdy
Checks: ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Test (1.13), ✅ 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/51
## 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.
