c6d087c29bd415991aba44597683089586820097
4
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Ben KraftandGitHub
|
f4c981031e |
Allow genqlient types to be marshaled safely (#120)
## Summary: When genqlient generates output types, it generates whatever code is necessary to unmarshal them. Conversely, when it generates input types, it generates whatever code is necessary to marshal. This is all that's needed for genqlient itself: it never needs to marshal output types or unmarshal input types. But maybe you do! (For example, to put the responses in a cache, which is the use case that @csilvers hit at Khan, although there are others one can imagine.) While we can't support every serialization format you might want (at least not without adding plugins or some such), it's not unreasonable to expect that since genqlient can read JSON, it can write it too. Sadly, in the past this was not true for types requiring custom unmarshaling logic, for several reasons. In this commit I implement logic to always write both marshalers and unmarshalers whenever they're needed to be able to correctly round-trip the types, even though genqlient doesn't do so. I wasn't starting from scratch, since of course we already write both marshalers and unmarshalers in some cases. But this ended up requiring surprisingly large changes on the marshaling side, mostly to correctly support embedding (which we use for named fragments). Specifically, as the comments in `types.go` discuss, the most difficult issue is spreads with duplicate fields, which translate to Go embedded fields which end up hidden from the json-marshaler. Ultimately, I had to do things quite differently from unmarshaling, and essentially flatten the type when we write marshaler. But in the end it's not so ugly -- indeed arguably it's cleaner! Mainly it's just different. One thing to note is that we do marshal `__typename` based on what we know about the types; users need not fill it in (and if they do we'll ignore it). This seemed to me to be a better UX, and didn't add much complexity. In general, I begin to wonder whether using `encoding/json` at all is really right for genqlient: we're doing a lot of work to appease it, despite knowing what our types look like. I think it would still be a significant increase in lines of code to roll our own, but that code would perhaps be simpler, and would surely be faster (although if we just want the speed gains we could use another JSON-generator library, see also #47). Anyway, something to think about in the future. ## Test plan: make tesc Author: benjaminjkraft Reviewers: csilvers, StevenACoffman, benjaminjkraft, 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, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14), ✅ Lint Pull Request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/120 |
||
|
Ben KraftandGitHub
|
65c3e20ee6 |
Fix bugs relating to optional fields with custom (un)marshalers (#116)
## Summary:
There were a few bugs here, one of which Craig came across when pulling
the custom-unmarshaler change into webapp:
1. If you have an optional field with a custom unmarshaler, and the
server omits the field from the response entirely (i.e. does not
write `"myField": null`), we would still call your unmarshaler with
an input of `[]byte(nil)`. This is just wrong; it's our job to do
the nil-check. (This is the one Craig found; in practice gqlgen
servers do not do this and I think the spec says not to although it's
a bit fuzzy on the matter of serialization. But in practice we have
mocks that do it -- for required fields even! -- and it seems better
to handle it than pass you data on which you'll probably err or even
panic.)
2. If you have an optional field with a custom unmarshaler, and the
server returns an explicit null (i.e. `"myField": null`), we would
call your unmarshaler with `[]byte("null")`. In principle the intent
was you're supposed to implement that, as [`json.Unmarshaler`
advises][1]. But (a) I forgot to document that, and (b) in practice
`json.Unmarshal` [does *not* call you in that case][2], i.e. its
advice is unnecessary. So I think it's better for us to just match
it, and not call you. (And in that case I see no reason to bother
documenting the advice.)
3. If you have an optional, `pointer: true` field with a custom
marshaler, the reverse of (2) applies: if the pointer is nil, we
shouldn't really call you. (Indeed if you were a real
`json.Marshaler` with a value-method rather than a pointer-method,
trying to call you might panic!) Note we don't need to explicitly
write "null"; we just leave the `json.RawMessage` as nil, and
`json.Marshal` [handles that][3].
4. We handle interface types effectively the same as custom
unmarshalers, just we generate the unmarshaler. So if you have an
optional field with interface type, (1) would also apply there; our
generated unmarshaler returns an error in this case.
5. While (2) doesn't apply to such optional interface fields (because we
do the customary `if string(b) == "null"` check -- this I at least
thought to test), if you set `pointer: true` on the field, we would
still call the unmarshaler on the value, and it would no-op, but only
*after* we initialized the pointer. Put more simply, we'd return a
non-nil pointer to nil interface, rather than a nil pointer; this is
wrong since the whole point of `pointer: true` is you only get a
non-nil pointer if your value is nil! Of course, in practice there's
little reason to use `pointer: true` on interface fields, and indeed
this stuff gets so confusing my test was even wrong.
In this commit I fix all the bugs, by adding appropriate nil-checks to
wrap the unmarshaler-calls. The templates are, as always, a bit
confusing, but the generated code makes it clear what changed.
Note we'll want to land this before cutting a release with custom
marshaler/unmarshaler support, because the first three bugs are
potentially quite noticeable. (The latter two are in `v0.1.0`, but
presumably quite rare.)
[1]: https://pkg.go.dev/encoding/json#Unmarshaler
[2]: https://play.golang.org/p/Pw6zNN8trGO
[3]: https://play.golang.org/p/crTfnT7ePte
Issue: https://phabricator.khanacademy.org/D74453#inline-558571
## Test plan:
make tesc
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: csilvers, StevenACoffman, benjaminjkraft, aberkan, dnerdy, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved By: csilvers, 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/116
|
||
|
Ben KraftandGitHub
|
7dcfa55128 |
[🔥AUDIT🔥] Fix tests after merge (#112)
🖍 _This is an audit!_ 🖍 ## Summary: This is what I get for not waiting for them to pass at each step of landing a stack! ## Test plan: make check Author: benjaminjkraft Auditors: dnerdy Required Reviewers: Approved By: 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/112 |
||
|
Ben KraftandGitHub
|
6e2b1a5811 |
Fix broken behavior for several options on the same node (#105)
## Summary: Previously, we actually allowed you to put several genqlient directives on the same node, but the semantics were undocumented (and somewhat confusing, when it comes to `typename`). In order to support directives on input options, we're actually going to be encouraging this usage (see notes in #14), so it's time to fix it. To avoid confusion, I just had conflicting directives be an error, rather than defining which one "wins". The same applies to specifying the same option several times in one directive. I also fixed two small bugs: - `typename` on an operation would incorrectly cascade down to all input types in a query (causing conflicts). - directive parse errors had useless positions, now they're correct ## 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, ⌛ Test (1.17), ⌛ Test (1.16), ⌛ Test (1.15), ⌛ Test (1.14), ⌛ Lint Pull Request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/105 |