-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
Write about @oneOf
in the graphql-js documentation
#4290
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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
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
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@ | ||
--- | ||
title: Input Unions | ||
--- | ||
|
||
import { Tabs } from 'nextra/components'; | ||
|
||
Some inputs will behave differently depending on what input we choose. Let's look at the case for | ||
a field named `product`, we can fetch a `Product` by either its `id` or its `name`. Currently we'd | ||
make a tradeoff for this by introducing two arguments that are both nullable, now if both are passed | ||
as null we'd have to handle that in code. To fix this the `@oneOf` directive was introduced so we | ||
JoviDeCroock marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
can create these input-unions without sacrificing the strictly typed nature of our GraphQL Schema. | ||
JoviDeCroock marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
||
<Tabs items={['SDL', 'Code']}> | ||
<Tabs.Tab> | ||
```js | ||
const schema = buildSchema(` | ||
type Product { | ||
id: ID! | ||
name: String! | ||
} | ||
|
||
input ProductInput @oneOf { | ||
id: ID | ||
name: String | ||
} | ||
|
||
type Query { | ||
product(input: ProductInput!): Product | ||
} | ||
JoviDeCroock marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
`); | ||
``` | ||
</Tabs.Tab> | ||
<Tabs.Tab> | ||
```js | ||
const Product = new GraphQLObjectType({ | ||
name: 'Product', | ||
fields: { | ||
id: { | ||
type: new GraphQLNonNull(GraphQLID), | ||
}, | ||
name: { | ||
type: new GraphQLNonNull(GraphQLString), | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
}); | ||
|
||
const ProductInput = new GraphQLInputObjectType({ | ||
name: 'ProductInput', | ||
isOneOf: true, | ||
fields: { | ||
id: { type: GraphQLID }, | ||
name: { type: GraphQLString }, | ||
}, | ||
}); | ||
|
||
const schema = new GraphQLSchema({ | ||
query: new GraphQLObjectType({ | ||
name: 'Query', | ||
fields: { | ||
product: { | ||
type: Product, | ||
args: { input: { type: ProductInput } }, | ||
}, | ||
}, | ||
}), | ||
}); | ||
``` | ||
</Tabs.Tab> | ||
</Tabs> | ||
|
||
It doesn't matter whether you have 2 or more inputs here, all that matters is | ||
that your user will have to specify one, and only one, for this input to be valid. | ||
JoviDeCroock marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
@oneOf
is not equivalent to "input union". You can use it to form an input union, but its use is broader than that. I would title it "OneOf input objects" or similar.(Example:
input UserSpecifier @oneOf { databaseId: Int, username: String, hospitalNumber: Int }
- note that bothdatabaseId
andhospitalNumber
areInt
and can uniquely identify a user in different ways - so this isn't simply a union.)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.
My hesitancy was mainly that it's less of a clickthrough as the name is opaque to people while a general known word helps. I do agree that they are not the same
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 agree; perhaps the URL would be oneof and the title would be "OneOf and input unions" or similar?