Type-name collapsing not working in some cases #109
Comments
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 22, 2021
We typically name our types `OperationFieldTypeFieldType`, but if a type's name matches the preceding field-name, we omit the type-name. In #71 I changed the behavior such that we no longer do that in the case where the type's name matches some suffix of the name-so-far that's longer than just the leaf field-name. This was semi-intentional; I assumed it didn't matter and would be more predictable this way. But it turns out that was a feature, both in the sense that almost any change to the type-name-generator is breaking, and in the sense that it made the names uglier. Plus, now that we have better conflict-detection (#94), the possibility that some tricksy type-names could cause problems is no longer as much of an issue, so we can be a little less careful here. (Although I think this is no less safe than before; the field-names are the important part.) So in this commit I revert the change. Specifically, this comes up a lot at Khan where we do ``` mutation ForcePhantom { forcePhantom { # type: ForcePhantom error { ... } # type: ForcePhantomError } } ``` Before #71, and again after this change, we'll generate `ForcePhantomForcePhantomError` for `error`; before we'd generate `ForcePhantomForcePhantomErrorForcePhantomError`. Issue: #109 Test plan: make tesc Reviewers: csilvers, marksandstrom, steve, mahtab, adam, miguel, jvoll
benjaminjkraft
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 23, 2021
## Summary: We typically name our types `OperationFieldTypeFieldType`, but if a type's name matches the preceding field-name, we omit the type-name. In #71 I changed the behavior such that we no longer do that in the case where the type's name matches some suffix of the name-so-far that's longer than just the leaf field-name. This was semi-intentional; I assumed it didn't matter and would be more predictable this way. But it turns out that was a feature, both in the sense that almost any change to the type-name-generator is breaking, and in the sense that it made the names uglier. Plus, now that we have better conflict-detection (#94), the possibility that some tricksy type-names could cause problems is no longer as much of an issue, so we can be a little less careful here. (Although I think this is no less safe than before; the field-names are the important part.) So in this commit I revert the change. Specifically, this comes up a lot at Khan where we do ``` mutation ForcePhantom { forcePhantom { # type: ForcePhantom error { ... } # type: ForcePhantomError } } ``` Before #71, and again after this change, we'll generate `ForcePhantomForcePhantomError` for `error`; before we'd generate `ForcePhantomForcePhantomErrorForcePhantomError`. Issue: #109 ## Test plan: make tesc Author: benjaminjkraft Reviewers: csilvers, aberkan, dnerdy, jvoll, mahtabsabet, MiguelCastillo, StevenACoffman Required Reviewers: Approved By: csilvers 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: #110
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
When pulling
v0.1.0into webapp we got some changes to type names which I think must have been inadvertently introduced by #71. My guess is something about where we do the uppercasing is confusing the suffix-collapsing logic. The details are in https://phabricator.khanacademy.org/D74434.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: