Rename @extraTag directive to @goTag and make repeatable

[wilhelmeek]

• Rename for consistency with @goField and @goModel
• Allow for repeatable use to bind multiple tag pairs

edit: added a comment down below, but contemplating whether it makes sense to have this directive at all given the addition of field-level hooks cc @johnmaguire

I have:

• Added tests covering the bug / feature (see testing)
• Updated any relevant documentation (see docs)

[coveralls]

Coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 54.015% when pulling a0e45dc on wilhelmeek:goTags into 87f9e43 on 99designs:master.

[wilhelmeek]

Hm, totally missed this great addition from @tprebs (thanks 🙏)

• Add graphql schema aware field level hook to modelgen #1650

I actually like the hook based approach a lot more given the extra flexibility it affords. Partially tempted to revert @extraTag entirely and more heavily promote the hooks (maybe even include one in the repo). Definitely keen to hear thoughts and opinions

[tprebs]

For our use case, I do like the hook based approach more as it allows your directive to be defined more as a behaviour rather than implementation detail. In our case we have a constraint directive (similar to https://www.apollographql.com/blog/backend/validation/graphql-validation-using-directives/) which defines the validation behaviour of the schema. This is abstract enough that we can switch how we do validation by swapping out the hook while the schema remains the same.

That being said, not everyone will have the same concerns as we do about abstraction and don't mind exposing implementation detail in the schema. Maybe a middle ground is re-implementing @goTag to be applied via a hook and include it as an example hook implementation in the repo. This should help promote the use of hooks while also providing a simple option for users to apply tags to the generated model.

[StevenACoffman]

goTag is much better than "extraTag", but I do think re-implementing it to be applied via a hook would be a good example. Maybe we merge this PR, and make another one to change the implementation to use hooks?

[tprebs]

I'm happy rewrite it it using hooks @StevenACoffman unless you want to pick it up @wilhelmeek?

[wilhelmeek]

I'm happy rewrite it it using hooks @StevenACoffman unless you want to pick it up @wilhelmeek?

No, go ahead 😄 I'm a big fan of this middle ground

[StevenACoffman]

Ok, I merged the rename, so @tprebs if you re-write it with hooks, that would be great to get in before a release. Thanks very much!

[tprebs]

Ok, I merged the rename, so @tprebs if you re-write it with hooks, that would be great to get in before a release. Thanks very much!

Will create the PR first thing tomorrow morning