chore: begin adding shared types and consolidate check operations #652
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
EverlastingBugstopper
changed the title
EverlastingBugstopper
changed the title
crates/rover-client/src/operations/graph/check/mutation_runner.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
EverlastingBugstopper
force-pushed
the
avery/start-shared-types
branch
from
9be2bcc
to
c3b0978
Compare
EverlastingBugstopper
changed the title
I got a little carried away with this commit, but it's a good thing I promise. We've got lots of shared types now, I've got plans for a bunch more, and things are looking cleaner than ever. graph::check and subgraph::check were the primary drivers here, but some other stuff was touched along the way.
EverlastingBugstopper
force-pushed
the
avery/start-shared-types
branch
from
6fc07c6
to
e77184d
Compare
EverlastingBugstopper
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 26, 2021
* chore: refactor subgraph check This commit does a lot of heavy lifting for the pending rebase. 1) Creates new input and output types in rover-client for subgraph check 2) Moves GitContext out of rover::utils to rover-client::utils 3) Creates error code E029 for composition errors 4) Styles cloud-composition errors like harmonizer * chore: refactor subgraph fetch (#575) * chore: refactor subgraph publish (#630) * chore: refactor config whoami (#633) * chore: refactor subgraph delete (#639) * chore: refactor subgraph list (#640) * chore: refactor subgraph introspect (#641) * chore: refactor graph introspect (#643) * chore: refactor release update checker (#646) * chore: begin adding shared types and consolidate check operations (#652) * chore: move GraphRef to rover-client (#664) * chore: refactor the rest of rover-client (#675) * chore: do not re-export queries * chore: finish wiring OperationCheck error * chore: adds graphql linter (#677) * fix: graph_ref -> graphref * feat: structured output (#676)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I got a little carried away with this commit, but it's a good thing I promise.
We've got lots of shared types now, I've got plans for a bunch more, and things are looking cleaner than ever.
graph::checkandsubgraph::checkwere the primary drivers here, but some other stuff was touched along the way, along with a rename of thequerymodule tooperations, since it contains both queries and operationsTODO:
subgraph checkdoesn't return the proper exit code or a proper error when the check response from studio says it breaks clients. composition errors will exit with code 1, but i'm fairly certain that it will print out the table of changes and not report any errors even if there are failure codes.I've implemented the above, which consolidates the behavior of both
graph checkandsubgraph checkto print and behave exactly the same.subgraph checkfor when operation checks fail. This is likely a breaking change in that before stuff would work, and now it doesn't? Though really it was a bug beforehand because you want things to fail in this case. That.. that's kinda the whole point.