## Summary:
If your type implements an interface, we add getter methods for the
shared fields, so that those may be accessed via the interface. But it
turns out occasionally it's useful to have these getter methods when
they don't implement a GraphQL interface, so you can use two
genqlient-generated types in the same function if they have the same
fields. (This comes up most often when you have a GraphQL union that
maybe should really be an interface, or if you don't yet support
interfaces implementing other interfaces (indeed our parser doesn't
either). But one can imagine other use cases.)
We can't predict how you want to do that, so we can't generate the
interface, but we can generate the methods, so you can define the
interface and do a type assertion from there. Since these methods are
pretty simple to generate, we just do it always. (As with #120, if
binary size becomes an issue we could later add an option to only
generate methods that are truly needed but including them seems like the
better default.)
This also fixes a subtle and rare bug, which would have become much more
common (indeed existing tests caught it). Specifically, if you have a
query like
```graphql
fragment FragmentOne on T { id }
fragment FragmentTwo on T { id }
query Q {
f { # interface type T
...FragmentOne
...FragmentTwo
}
}
```
since both `FragmentOne` and `FragmentTwo` request some common field,
say `id`, we generate a method `GetId` on each one. But since
`FragmentOne` and `FragmentTwo` are both on `T`, we also include their
interfaces in the interface we generate for the type of `f`, `QFT`. So
`QFT` includes a method `GetId`. But on the implementations, the two
methods conflict, and neither gets promoted; this causes various code to
fail to compile. With this change, this would have happened much more
frequently -- even if only one of the two fragments is on `T`, as long
as both request the field. Anyway, we now generate explicit methods on
each struct for all of its recursively emebedded fields -- using the
logic from #120 to compute them -- so that we don't need to rely on
method-promotion.
## Test plan:
make tesc
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: csilvers, dnerdy, aberkan, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo, StevenACoffman
Required Reviewers:
Approved By: csilvers, 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/126
## Summary:
In this commit I refactor the argument-generation logic to move most of
the code out of the template and into the type-generator. This logic
predates #51, and I didn't think to update it there, but I think it
benefits from similar treatment, for similar reasons.
Specifically, the main change is to treat variables as another struct
type we can generate, rather than handling them inline as a
`map[string]interface{}`. Users still pass them the same way, but
instead of putting them into a `map[string]interface{}` and JSONifying
that, we generate a struct and put them there.
This turns out to simplify things quite a lot, because we already have a
lot of code to generate types. Notably, the omitempty code goes from a
dozen lines to basically two, and fixes a bug (#43) in the process,
because now that we have a struct, `json.Marshal` will do our work for
us! (And, once we have syntax for it (#14), we'll be able to handle
field-level omitempty basically for free.) More importantly, it will
simplify custom marshalers (#38, forthcoming) significantly, since we do
all that logic at the containing-struct level, but will need to apply it
to arguments.
It does require two breaking changes:
1. For folks implementing the `graphql.Client` API (rather than just
calling `NewClient`): we now pass them variables as an `interface{}`
rather than a `map[string]interface{}`. For most callers, including
Khan/webapp, this is basically a one-line change to the signature of
their `MakeRequest`, and it should be a lot more future-proof.
2. genqlient's handling of the `omitempty` option has changed to match
that of `encoding/json`, in particular it now never considers structs
"empty". The difference was never intentional (I just didn't realize
that behavior of `encoding/json`); arguably our behavior was more
useful but I think that's outweighed by the value of consistency with
`encoding/json` as well as the simpler and more correct
implementation (fixing #43 is actually quite nontrivial otherwise).
Once we have custom unmarshaler support (#38), users will be able to
map a zero value to JSON null if they wish, which is mostly if not
entirely equivalent for GraphQL's purposes.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/38
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/43
## 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, ✅ Lint, ✅ Test (1.17), ✅ Test (1.16), ✅ Test (1.15), ✅ Test (1.14)
Pull Request URL: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/pull/103
## Summary:
I realized:
- it's simpler to avoid the usual `cmd` and just put it all in the same
directory
- we don't need schema.json since GitHub now posts a schema in SDL
format
## Test plan:
make lint example
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: dnerdy, StevenACoffman, aberkan, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved By: dnerdy, 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/89
## Summary:
ContextType is in use at Khan as a part of our ka-context system; it
basically just lets you configure the type to pass as the `ctx` argument
to genqlient helpers (or say to omit such an argument). ClientGetter I
wrote thinking we might use it; then we didn't (because we have a few
different clients we may use) but it's not much code and may be helpful
to others. In this commit I clean up, document, and add tests for both
options.
The cleanup is mainly for ClientGetter, which was kind of broken before
because it was a Go snippet but couldn't specify imports. I was
thinking maybe you want to be able to write `ctx.Something()`, but I
just don't see how to make it work, so I made it a function of context,
which is probably the better idea anyway.
Additionally, I improved the documentation for both, and added tests for
those and several other config options that weren't completely tested.
Fixes#5.
Issue: https://github.com/Khan/genqlient/issues/5
## 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/77
## Summary:
We had this setting called "scalars", which said: bind this GraphQL type
to this Go type, rather than the one you would normally use. It's
called that because it's most useful for custom scalars, where "the one
you would normally use" is "error: unknown scalar". But nothing ever
stopped you from using it for a non-scalar type. I was planning on
removing this functionality, because it's sort of a rough edge, but a
discussion with Craig found some good use cases, so instead, in this
commit, I document it better and add some slightly nicer ways to specify
it.
Specifically, here are a few potential non-scalar use cases:
- bind a GraphQL enum to a nonstandard type (or even `string`)
- bind an input type to some type that has exactly the fields you want;
this acts as a sort of workaround for issues #14 and #44
- bind an object type to your own struct, so as to add methods to it
(this is the use case Craig raised)
- bind an object type to your own struct, so as to share it between
multiple queries (I believe named fragments will address this case
better, but it doesn't hurt to have options)
- bind a GraphQL list type to a non-slice type in Go (presumably one
with an UnmarshalJSON method), or any other different structure
The latter three cases still have the sharp edge I was originally
worried about, which is that nothing guarantees that the fields you
request in the query are the ones the type expects to get. But I think
it's worth having the option, with appropriate disclaimers.
The main change to help support that better is that you can now specify
the type inline in the query, as an alternative to specifying it in the
config file; this means you might map a given object to a given struct,
but only in some cases, and when you do you have a chance to look at the
list of fields you're requesting.
Additionally, I renamed the config field from "scalars" to "bindings"
(but mentioned it in a few places where you might go looking for how to
map scalars, most importantly the error message you get for an unknown
(custom) scalar). While I was making a breaking change, I also changed
it to be a `map[string]<struct>` instead of a `map[string]string`,
because I expect to add more fields soon, e.g. to handle issue #38.
Finally, since the feature is now intended/documented, I added some
tests, although it's honestly quite simple on the genqlient side.
## Test plan:
make tesc
Author: benjaminjkraft
Reviewers: csilvers, aberkan, dnerdy, MiguelCastillo
Required Reviewers:
Approved by: csilvers
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/69
## 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
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.
Nikolay Edigaryev