## 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:
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
