-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
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
[RFC] Type system ordering of: object interfaces, directive arguments, input object fields, enum values #1063
base: maintain-order
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from all commits
d7d9e37
7170d82
602d319
ce8c732
da69309
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -302,17 +302,18 @@ enumerable. GraphQL offers an `Enum` type in those cases, where the type | |
specifies the space of valid responses. | ||
|
||
Scalars and Enums form the leaves in response trees; the intermediate levels are | ||
`Object` types, which define a set of fields, where each field is another type | ||
in the system, allowing the definition of arbitrary type hierarchies. | ||
`Object` types, which define an ordered set of fields, where each field is | ||
another type in the system, allowing the definition of arbitrary type | ||
hierarchies. | ||
|
||
GraphQL supports two abstract types: interfaces and unions. | ||
|
||
An `Interface` defines a list of fields; `Object` types and other Interface | ||
types which implement this Interface are guaranteed to implement those fields. | ||
Whenever a field claims it will return an Interface type, it will return a valid | ||
implementing Object type during execution. | ||
An `Interface` defines an ordered set of fields; `Object` types and other | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. IMO Interface/Object is not really an ordered set? Maybe it is? It feels a little bit annoying for maintainers to feel like they must maintain order (does the order of fields in the object need to match the order in the interface)? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Basically, IMO every "set" we have is in fact an ordered set, so specifying ordered set vs. just set is more, not less, confusing. Am I wrong and is there in fact any unordered set? Or should we just use set and use unordered set when we don't expect you to be able to preserve order? There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. A set in set theory is unordered, and calling a programming data structure a set outside of this spec generally implies it to be unordered. Even if it wouldn’t be exactly wrong for the spec to only say in one place "all sets in this document are implicitly ordered" it’s not great spec-writing. Specifying "ordered set" explicitly every time makes readers less likely to make a wrong assumption. There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Veering a little off topic, but that's not technically true, more accurate might be to say that pure set theory is "order agnostic" - the concept of order is entirely absent from the definition of a set. Typically set theory and order theory go hand in hand, and a set can be ordered, unordered, or even partially ordered. That said, I agree with your conclusion that explicit > implicit.
Great catch. IMO an interface defines an ordered set of fields (order is significant, and must be reflected in introspection); however we should state that implementations can implement this set of fields in any order - I've added a commit 7170d82 to address this. |
||
Interface types which implement this Interface are guaranteed to implement those | ||
fields (in any order). Whenever a field claims it will return an Interface type, | ||
it will return a valid implementing Object type during execution. | ||
|
||
A `Union` defines a list of possible types; similar to interfaces, whenever the | ||
A `Union` defines a set of possible types; similar to interfaces, whenever the | ||
type system claims a union will be returned, one of the possible types will be | ||
returned. | ||
|
||
|
@@ -674,11 +675,11 @@ GraphQL operations are hierarchical and composed, describing a tree of | |
information. While Scalar types describe the leaf values of these hierarchical | ||
operations, Objects describe the intermediate levels. | ||
|
||
GraphQL Objects represent a list of named fields, each of which yield a value of | ||
a specific type. Object values should be serialized as ordered maps, where the | ||
selected field names (or aliases) are the keys and the result of evaluating the | ||
field is the value, ordered by the order in which they appear in the _selection | ||
set_. | ||
GraphQL Objects represent an ordered set of named fields, each of which yield a | ||
value of a specific type. Object values should be serialized as ordered maps, | ||
where the selected field names (or aliases) are the keys and the result of | ||
evaluating the field is the value, ordered by the order in which they appear in | ||
the _selection set_. | ||
|
||
All fields defined within an Object type must not have a name which begins with | ||
{"\_\_"} (two underscores), as this is used exclusively by GraphQL's | ||
|
@@ -920,7 +921,8 @@ of rules must be adhered to by every Object type in a GraphQL schema. | |
returns {true}. | ||
4. If argument type is Non-Null and a default value is not defined: | ||
1. The `@deprecated` directive must not be applied to this argument. | ||
3. An object type may declare that it implements one or more unique interfaces. | ||
3. An object type may declare that it implements one or more unique interfaces, | ||
these interfaces form an ordered set. | ||
4. An object type must be a super-set of all interfaces it implements: | ||
1. Let this object type be {objectType}. | ||
2. For each interface declared implemented as {interfaceType}, | ||
|
@@ -982,7 +984,7 @@ InputValueDefinition : Description? Name : Type DefaultValue? Directives[Const]? | |
|
||
Object fields are conceptually functions which yield values. Occasionally object | ||
fields can accept arguments to further specify the return value. Object field | ||
arguments are defined as a list of all possible argument names and their | ||
arguments are defined as an ordered set of all possible argument names and their | ||
expected input types. | ||
Comment on lines
+987
to
988
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Similar to fields (comment above): rather than a set, shouldn’t field definitions (and directive definitions) have an ordered map of argument names to argument definitions? And the values of this map are more than expected types: an argument definition may also include a default value and directives) There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Here can be interpreted as "(an ordered set of all possible argument names) (and their expected input types)" so the set is fine; but I hate ambiguity and would rather define it as a map too. I think that's currently out of scope for this PR though. |
||
|
||
All arguments defined within a field must not have a name which begins with | ||
|
@@ -1093,9 +1095,10 @@ InterfaceTypeDefinition : | |
- Description? interface Name ImplementsInterfaces? Directives[Const]? | ||
[lookahead != `{`] | ||
|
||
GraphQL interfaces represent a list of named fields and their arguments. GraphQL | ||
objects and interfaces can then implement these interfaces which requires that | ||
the implementing type will define all fields defined by those interfaces. | ||
GraphQL interfaces represent an ordered set of named fields and their arguments. | ||
GraphQL objects and interfaces can then implement these interfaces which | ||
requires that the implementing type will define all fields defined by those | ||
interfaces. | ||
|
||
Fields on a GraphQL interface have the same rules as fields on a GraphQL object; | ||
their type can be Scalar, Object, Enum, Interface, or Union, or any wrapping | ||
|
@@ -1347,10 +1350,10 @@ UnionMemberTypes : | |
- UnionMemberTypes | NamedType | ||
- = `|`? NamedType | ||
|
||
GraphQL Unions represent an object that could be one of a list of GraphQL Object | ||
types, but provides for no guaranteed fields between those types. They also | ||
differ from interfaces in that Object types declare what interfaces they | ||
implement, but are not aware of what unions contain them. | ||
GraphQL Unions represent an object that could be one of an ordered set of | ||
GraphQL Object types, but provides for no guaranteed fields between those types. | ||
They also differ from interfaces in that Object types declare what interfaces | ||
they implement, but are not aware of what unions contain them. | ||
|
||
With interfaces and objects, only those fields defined on the type can be | ||
queried directly; to query other fields on an interface, typed fragments must be | ||
|
@@ -1408,7 +1411,7 @@ A valid operation includes typed fragments (in this example, inline fragments): | |
``` | ||
|
||
Union members may be defined with an optional leading `|` character to aid | ||
formatting when representing a longer list of possible types: | ||
formatting when representing a longer set of possible types: | ||
|
||
```raw graphql example | ||
union SearchResult = | ||
|
@@ -1547,9 +1550,9 @@ InputFieldsDefinition : { InputValueDefinition+ } | |
Fields may accept arguments to configure their behavior. These inputs are often | ||
scalars or enums, but they sometimes need to represent more complex values. | ||
|
||
A GraphQL Input Object defines a set of input fields; the input fields are | ||
either scalars, enums, or other input objects. This allows arguments to accept | ||
arbitrarily complex structs. | ||
A GraphQL Input Object defines an ordered set of named input fields; the input | ||
fields are either scalars, enums, or other input objects. This allows arguments | ||
to accept arbitrarily complex structs. | ||
|
||
In this example, an Input Object called `Point2D` describes `x` and `y` inputs: | ||
|
||
|
@@ -1936,6 +1939,10 @@ A GraphQL schema describes directives which are used to annotate various parts | |
of a GraphQL document as an indicator that they should be evaluated differently | ||
by a validator, executor, or client tool such as a code generator. | ||
|
||
Directives can accept arguments to further specify their behavior. Directive | ||
arguments are defined as an ordered set of all possible argument names and their | ||
expected input types. | ||
|
||
**Built-in Directives** | ||
|
||
:: A _built-in directive_ is any directive defined within this specification. | ||
|
@@ -1983,7 +1990,7 @@ fragment SomeFragment on SomeType { | |
``` | ||
|
||
Directive locations may be defined with an optional leading `|` character to aid | ||
formatting when representing a longer list of possible locations: | ||
formatting when representing a longer set of possible locations: | ||
|
||
```raw graphql example | ||
directive @example on | ||
|
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.
Shouldn’t objects (and interfaces, and input objects) have an ordered map of fields? The field names are unique, not the field definitions as a whole.
foo: Int, foo: String
would be a set of two different fields that happen to share a name.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.
This is something I raised in the WG actually; but that change is beyond the scope of this PR.