feat: add includedTypes and excludedTypes options for selective mock generation

[huseyinbuyukdere]

This PR introduces two new configuration options, includedTypes and excludedTypes, to the graphql-codegen-typescript-mock-data plugin for enhanced control over mock data generation:

Changes Introduced:

1. includedTypes (Array of strings):

   • Allows specifying an array of types to include in the mock generation.
   • Only the types listed in includedTypes will have mock data generated.

2. excludedTypes (Array of strings):

   • Allows specifying an array of types to exclude from the mock generation.
   • Types listed in excludedTypes will not have mock data generated.

3. Precedence:

   • If both includedTypes and excludedTypes are provided, includedTypes takes precedence over excludedTypes.

Examples:

1. includedTypes Example:

plugins:
  - typescript-mock-data:
      includedTypes:
        - User
        - Avatar

In this configuration, mock data will be generated only for User and Avatar types.

2. excludedTypes Example:

plugins:
  - typescript-mock-data:
      excludedTypes:
        - User
        - Avatar

In this configuration, User and Avatar types will be excluded from mock data generation.

3. Combined includedTypes and excludedTypes:

plugins:
  - typescript-mock-data:
      includedTypes:
        - User
      excludedTypes:
        - User
        - Avatar

In this example, despite being listed in excludedTypes, User will still have mock data generated because includedTypes takes precedence.

Documentation Updates:

• Added descriptions for includedTypes and excludedTypes in the README.md.
• Added examples demonstrating how to use these options.

Tests:

• Added unit tests to validate the behavior of includedTypes and excludedTypes:
  • Mock generation for included types.
  • Exclusion of specific types.
  • Precedence handling when both options are provided.

---

This update provides flexibility for users to selectively include or exclude types, making mock data generation more efficient and tailored to specific testing needs.

[ardeois]

The idea seems fine, thanks for your contribution !

I have one concern about non-types definitions that we should probably support.

Also, if a type uses other types, should we automatically include them? Or should we leave that decision to the user ?

[huseyinbuyukdere]

The idea seems fine, thanks for your contribution !

I have one concern about non-types definitions that we should probably support.

Also, if a type uses other types, should we automatically include them? Or should we leave that decision to the user ?

Quote reply

Hmm we can include that but it will increase the complexity for now IMO. For now that lets keep it like that, if there will be a problem (And also I will use it :) ), if it is getting a problem in the future we can do that. But for now we do not need imo.

[ardeois]

Hmm we can include that but it will increase the complexity for now IMO. For now that lets keep it like that, if there will be a problem (And also I will use it :) ), if it is getting a problem in the future we can do that. But for now we do not need imo.

I agree it would indeed increase the complexity, so let's keep it like that.

So just add allow the non-types definitions and add snapshots please
Thanks !

[hugotiger]

This looks amazing! Will be very beneficial for us since the amount of generated mocks in our application really slows things down (IDE, Typescript etc).

Is there anything I can help with to get this out soon? 😄

[thomasobrien99]

This would be helpful for us too until the oneOf directive is supported