feature(scalars): support distinction between input and output generator configs #182
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
just trying to group them in preparation for adding more specs with the new config options for scalars
… type So, when we have a normal FieldDefinition, we want to assume we want to use the output generator. When we visit the InputObjectTypeDefinition and call generateMockValue on its children, we can assume we want the input generator. We keep the other types of generator config types around for backwards compatibility. It could be a nice refactoring opportunity to map the existing config types to the input/output type, instead of what we do in this commit, which is check/switch on `value` in `getGeneratorDefinition`, but I wanted to prove to myself that we could generate distinct mocks.
Tests were failing. Also, assert the last return is a GeneratorDefinition. I have to clean this up, but essentially TS is being unable to narrow this down. An InputOutputGeneratorOptions is a one level deep object with GeneratorOptions, so the recursive call will inevitably trickle down to a base case where we _do not_ have an InputOutputGeneratorOptions.
I.e. the very basic display of what this PR is meant to change. Follow up commits will cover the faker side of things, and possibly other config permutations.
argvniyx-enroute
commented
Apr 1, 2025
tests/scalars/spec.ts
Outdated
There was a problem hiding this comment.
These changes are way easier to review if you hide whitespace
argvniyx-enroute
commented
Apr 1, 2025
…atorDefinition with that Hopefully this reads a bit better and while it isn't a discriminated union (and while there's room for improvement still), it's at least not a type assertion
ardeois
approved these changes
Apr 2, 2025
Seems v2 was deprecated on Feb 1st (!) From a quick skim, seems the config remained unchanged, though. Worth a shot!
|
@ardeois Nice! Thank you for taking a look! Seems like |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
This addresses #139.
To do so:
InputOutputGeneratorOptions, and added it as aScalarMapoptionOptionsto have ageneratorModefield, which is eitherinputoroutputinputoroutputtogenerateMockValuedepending on whether we're visiting aFieldDefinitionor anInputObjectTypeDefinitionnode. We do this and the above because ...getGeneratorDefinitionwith the mode to be able to know how to pluck out the appropriate generator whenvalueis anInputOutputGeneratorOptions.