release-1714135357803
版本发布时间: 2024-04-26 20:42:38
ardatan/graphql-tools最新发布版本:release-1727374913368(2024-09-27 02:21:53)
@graphql-tools/delegate@10.0.5
Patch Changes
-
#6091
9bca9e0
Thanks @User, @User! - If the gateway receives a query with an overlapping fields for the subschema, it uses aliases to resolve it correctly.Let's say subschema A has the following schema;
type Query { } interface User { id: ID! name: String! } type Admin implements User { id: ID! name: String! role: String! } type Customer implements User { id: ID! name: String email: String }
And let's say the gateway has the following schema instead;
type Query { } interface User { id: ID! name: String! } type Admin implements User { id: ID! name: String! role: String! } type Customer implements User { id: ID! name: String! email: String! }
In this case, the following query is fine for the gateway but for the subschema, it's not;
query { user { ... on Admin { id name # This is nullable in the subschema role } ... on Customer { id name # This is non-nullable in the subschema email } } }
So the subgraph will throw based on this rule OverlappingFieldsCanBeMerged
To avoid this, the gateway will use aliases to resolve the query correctly. The query will be transformed to the following;
query { user { ... on Admin { id name # This is nullable in the subschema role } ... on Customer { id name: _nullable_name # This is non-nullable in the subschema email } } }
-
#6092
243c353
Thanks @ardatan! - If one of the subgraphs are already able to resolve a nested field as inparent-entity-call
example'sCategory.details
from C'sProduct
, resolve it from there instead of using type merging.query { product { category { details { # This is coming from C's Product, so resolve it from there instead of Type Merging id name } } } }
@graphql-tools/federation@1.1.28
Patch Changes
-
#6091
9bca9e0
Thanks @User, @User! - If the gateway receives a query with an overlapping fields for the subschema, it uses aliases to resolve it correctly.Let's say subschema A has the following schema;
type Query { } interface User { id: ID! name: String! } type Admin implements User { id: ID! name: String! role: String! } type Customer implements User { id: ID! name: String email: String }
And let's say the gateway has the following schema instead;
type Query { } interface User { id: ID! name: String! } type Admin implements User { id: ID! name: String! role: String! } type Customer implements User { id: ID! name: String! email: String! }
In this case, the following query is fine for the gateway but for the subschema, it's not;
query { user { ... on Admin { id name # This is nullable in the subschema role } ... on Customer { id name # This is non-nullable in the subschema email } } }
So the subgraph will throw based on this rule OverlappingFieldsCanBeMerged
To avoid this, the gateway will use aliases to resolve the query correctly. The query will be transformed to the following;
query { user { ... on Admin { id name # This is nullable in the subschema role } ... on Customer { id name: _nullable_name # This is non-nullable in the subschema email } } }
-
Updated dependencies [
9bca9e0
,9bca9e0
,243c353
]:- @graphql-tools/stitch@9.2.0
- @graphql-tools/delegate@10.0.5
@graphql-tools/stitch@9.2.0
Minor Changes
-
#6091
9bca9e0
Thanks @User, @User! - New optionuseNonNullableFieldOnConflict
intypeMergingOptions
ofstitchSchemas
When you have two schemas like below, you will get a warning about the conflicting fields because
name
field is defined as non-null in one schema and nullable in the other schema, and non-nullable field can exist in the stitched schema because of the order or any other reasons, and this might actually cause an unexpected behavior when you fetchUser.name
from the one who has it as non-nullable. This option supresses the warning, and takes the field from the schema that has it as non-nullable.type Query { } type User { id: ID! name: String email: String }
And;
type Query { } type User { id: ID! name: String! }
Patch Changes
-
#6091
9bca9e0
Thanks @User, @User! - If the gateway receives a query with an overlapping fields for the subschema, it uses aliases to resolve it correctly.Let's say subschema A has the following schema;
type Query { } interface User { id: ID! name: String! } type Admin implements User { id: ID! name: String! role: String! } type Customer implements User { id: ID! name: String email: String }
And let's say the gateway has the following schema instead;
type Query { } interface User { id: ID! name: String! } type Admin implements User { id: ID! name: String! role: String! } type Customer implements User { id: ID! name: String! email: String! }
In this case, the following query is fine for the gateway but for the subschema, it's not;
query { user { ... on Admin { id name # This is nullable in the subschema role } ... on Customer { id name # This is non-nullable in the subschema email } } }
So the subgraph will throw based on this rule OverlappingFieldsCanBeMerged
To avoid this, the gateway will use aliases to resolve the query correctly. The query will be transformed to the following;
query { user { ... on Admin { id name # This is nullable in the subschema role } ... on Customer { id name: _nullable_name # This is non-nullable in the subschema email } } }
-
#6092
243c353
Thanks @ardatan! - If one of the subgraphs are already able to resolve a nested field as inparent-entity-call
example'sCategory.details
from C'sProduct
, resolve it from there instead of using type merging.query { product { category { details { # This is coming from C's Product, so resolve it from there instead of Type Merging id name } } } }
-
Updated dependencies [
9bca9e0
,243c353
]:- @graphql-tools/delegate@10.0.5