## 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
Ben Kraft
3a5bf46da4