Closed plasticine closed 8 years ago
Sorry I haven't responded on this earlier, was a bit distracted by the holidays!
This looks pretty good on first inspection. Is it ready to merge?
I can't remember the exact reason for not doing this initially, but I do recall it didn't seem to add much value. I don't think I've seen a reason yet to have an extra layer of indirection on this, but consistency is definitely as good a reason as any to get this in.
No worries — busy time of year! ;)
Yep, it's good to go.
On Sun, Jan 3, 2016 at 1:27 PM, Josh Price notifications@github.com wrote:
Sorry I haven't responded on this earlier, was a bit distracted by the holidays! This looks pretty good on first inspection. Is it ready to merge?
I can't remember the exact reason for not doing this initially, but I do recall it didn't seem to add much value. I don't think I've seen a reason yet to have an extra layer of indirection on this, but consistency is definitely as good a reason as any to get this in.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: https://github.com/joshprice/graphql-elixir/pull/31#issuecomment-168450476
This PR adds support in the parser for extracting the Name GraphQL type.
The reference implementation (as far as I can tell) uses a
Name
type instead of the literal string value for name fields in the graph parser currently used in the implementation here.For example, currently
GraphQL.Lang.Parser.parse("{ a, b { x }, c }")
would result inFields
that look like this:Where according to the reference implementation it should look more like this;
Relevant sections of the reference implementation;
TODOs