-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
feat(gatsby-source-graphql): Add transformSchema option #25048
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
10 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
177f447
[gatsby-source-graphql] add transfomSchema option
ariadne-github ba48a3a
Merge branch 'master' into patch-4
de3ce87
Fix implementation, renamed option
2761fbb
Merge branch 'master' into patch-4
a04e6f7
Added options parameter and readme example
1658828
Removed example + default implementation + references
57642b6
Renamed transformSchema in customWrapSchemaFn
a5023e6
Renamed back option into "transformSchema"
bff49db
Merge branch 'master' into patch-4
a85b6e4
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into patch-4
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think we need to add a note that the return value is expected to be the final schema used for stitching.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, basically, I should only leave this as a reference?
I just think that would be a bit vague for anyone else to do something useful without knowing at least how the
NamespaceUnderFieldTransform
is implemented. But if it's good for you, it's good for me too.What if I link to this issue somewhere to leave a hint?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem with this feature in general (as I see it) is that it requires a deep understanding of plugin internals and
graphql-tools
anyways.I doubt that the example will be enough for anyone to actually use it. People will probably have to dig into the plugin source code anyways. But it may be rather confusing to other people who don't use this feature.
So we need to surface that this feature exists in docs and leave hints on what other knowledge people may need to actually use it.
Adding a link to the original issue makes sense to me though. I think it's ok to go ahead and do this change. Then let's wait for the learning team review.