Closed tmattio closed 6 years ago
Don't you also need @bsRecord
on node
?
Adding or removing @bsRecord
from node
does not change the parsing either.
This is a bug in the current limitation, thanks for reporting this.
Fixed in 0.2.8.
Hi @mhallin! The bug seems to be fixed in 0.2.8 for union types, but I still have the bug for interfaces :/
Hi,
I am trying to write a query containing union types. I first wrote a separated fragment and got a clear message: only inline fragments are supported with union types. So I wrote my query like this:
But the bsRecord on the
... on Dataset @bsRecord
does not work: the fragment is parsed as an object instead of a record. Is this a bug or am I doing something wrong?Thanks :)