I'am new to GraphQL but I really like it. Now that I'am playing with interfaces and unions, I'am facing a problem with mutations.
Suppose that I have this schema :
interface FoodType {
id: String
type: String
}
type Pizza implements FoodType {
id: String
type: String
pizzaType: String
toppings: [String]
size: String
}
type Salad implements FoodType {
id: String
type: String
vegetarian: Boolean
dressing: Boolean
}
type BasicFood implements FoodType {
id: String
type: String
}
Now, I'd like to create new food items, so I started doing something like this :
type Mutation {
addPizza(input:Pizza):FoodType
addSalad(input:Salad):FoodType
addBasic(input:BasicFood):FoodType
}
This did not work for 2 reasons :
If I want to pass an object as parameter, this one must be an "input" type. But "Pizza", "Salad" and "BasicFood" are just "type".
An input type cannot implement an interface.
So, my question is : How do you work with mutations in this context of interface without having to duplicate types too much? I'd like to avoid having a Pizza type for queries and an InputPizza type for mutations.
Thank you for your help.
Input and Output types are fundamentally different things, just because you may have ones that happen to represent a similar object (eg Pizza and PizzaInput), it's a false equivalence.
Let's say in your schema Pizza has a mandatory id field (your IDs aren't mandatory, but probably should be). It probably wouldn't make sense for PizzaInput to have an ID field -- it would be generated by the server. The point i'm making is that in anything but the simplest systems, there's going to be processing to turn user input into a fully-fledged object to return.
You just have to bite the bullet and do what feels like duplicated work, you'll see the benefits in the long run.
Related
Being new to MongoDB, I'm currently integrating the kMongo library to my ktor project, and trying to create a database to read & write event models to.
Following the instructions for object mapping in the kMongo user manual, I've created a mongoId field which gets serialised as a String named _id.
My event model is a data class, nested in sealed classes but gets serialised correctly by KotlinX-Serialization. The model looks as such:
sealed class Event {
#SerialName("_id") abstract val mongoId: String
abstract val id: ID.Event
abstract val dateTime: LocalDateTime
fun asString() = id.toString()
sealed class Hiring : Event() {
#SerialName("_id") abstract override val mongoId: String
abstract override val id: ID.Event
abstract override val dateTime: LocalDateTime
#Serializable
data class Start(
override val id: ID.Event,
override val dateTime: LocalDateTime,
val hiringDetailsId: ID.HiringDetails
) : Hiring() {
#SerialName("_id") override val mongoId: String = id.asString()
}
...
In a repository class, I initialise MongoDB and use the generic, parameter-less find() on a collection to retrieve all Event models from the database:
...
private val kmongo = KMongo.createClient().coroutine.client
private val db = kmongo.getDatabase("test")
private val eventCollection = db.getCollection<Event>().coroutine
...
override suspend fun getAllEvents() = eventCollection.find().toList()
Then inside of the Main class, I try to load the Event data on a click trigger:
...
val id = ID.Event(UUID())
...
it.on.click {
runBlocking {
val events = eventRepo.getAllEvents().toString()
logger.debug { events }
}
}
The strange part starts here, the server starts correctly and MongoDB is initialised correctly, but as soon as I try to do the read on the click trigger, I am presented with following error:
org.bson.BsonInvalidOperationException: readString can only be called when CurrentBSONType is STRING, not when CurrentBSONType is DOCUMENT.
at org.bson.AbstractBsonReader.verifyBSONType(AbstractBsonReader.java:689)
at org.bson.AbstractBsonReader.checkPreconditions(AbstractBsonReader.java:721)
at org.bson.AbstractBsonReader.readString(AbstractBsonReader.java:456)
at com.github.jershell.kbson.FlexibleDecoder.decodeString(BsonFlexibleDecoder.kt:130)
at kotlinx.serialization.encoding.AbstractDecoder.decodeStringElement(AbstractDecoder.kt:58)
at kotlinx.serialization.internal.AbstractPolymorphicSerializer.deserialize(AbstractPolymorphicSerializer.kt:52)
at kotlinx.serialization.encoding.Decoder$DefaultImpls.decodeSerializableValue(Decoding.kt:257)
at kotlinx.serialization.encoding.AbstractDecoder.decodeSerializableValue(AbstractDecoder.kt:16)
at org.litote.kmongo.serialization.SerializationCodec.decode(SerializationCodec.kt:66)
at com.mongodb.internal.operation.CommandResultArrayCodec.decode(CommandResultArrayCodec.java:52)
at com.mongodb.internal.operation.CommandResultDocumentCodec.readValue(CommandResultDocumentCodec.java:60)
at org.bson.codecs.BsonDocumentCodec.decode(BsonDocumentCodec.java:87)
at org.bson.codecs.BsonDocumentCodec.decode(BsonDocumentCodec.java:42)
at org.bson.internal.LazyCodec.decode(LazyCodec.java:48)
at org.bson.codecs.BsonDocumentCodec.readValue(BsonDocumentCodec.java:104)
at com.mongodb.internal.operation.CommandResultDocumentCodec.readValue(CommandResultDocumentCodec.java:63)
at org.bson.codecs.BsonDocumentCodec.decode(BsonDocumentCodec.java:87)
at org.bson.codecs.BsonDocumentCodec.decode(BsonDocumentCodec.java:42)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.ReplyMessage.<init>(ReplyMessage.java:51)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection.getCommandResult(InternalStreamConnection.java:535)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection.access$500(InternalStreamConnection.java:86)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$2$1.onResult(InternalStreamConnection.java:520)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$2$1.onResult(InternalStreamConnection.java:498)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$MessageHeaderCallback$MessageCallback.onResult(InternalStreamConnection.java:821)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$MessageHeaderCallback$MessageCallback.onResult(InternalStreamConnection.java:785)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$5.completed(InternalStreamConnection.java:645)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$5.completed(InternalStreamConnection.java:642)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.AsynchronousChannelStream$BasicCompletionHandler.completed(AsynchronousChannelStream.java:250)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.AsynchronousChannelStream$BasicCompletionHandler.completed(AsynchronousChannelStream.java:233)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.Invoker.invokeUnchecked(Invoker.java:129)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.Invoker.invokeDirect(Invoker.java:160)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.implRead(UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.java:573)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.AsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.read(AsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.java:276)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.AsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.read(AsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.java:297)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.AsynchronousSocketChannelStream$AsynchronousSocketChannelAdapter.read(AsynchronousSocketChannelStream.java:144)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.AsynchronousChannelStream.readAsync(AsynchronousChannelStream.java:118)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.AsynchronousChannelStream.readAsync(AsynchronousChannelStream.java:107)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection.readAsync(InternalStreamConnection.java:642)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection.access$600(InternalStreamConnection.java:86)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$MessageHeaderCallback.onResult(InternalStreamConnection.java:775)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$MessageHeaderCallback.onResult(InternalStreamConnection.java:760)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$5.completed(InternalStreamConnection.java:645)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.InternalStreamConnection$5.completed(InternalStreamConnection.java:642)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.AsynchronousChannelStream$BasicCompletionHandler.completed(AsynchronousChannelStream.java:250)
at com.mongodb.internal.connection.AsynchronousChannelStream$BasicCompletionHandler.completed(AsynchronousChannelStream.java:233)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.Invoker.invokeUnchecked(Invoker.java:129)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.finishRead(UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.java:447)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.finish(UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.java:195)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.onEvent(UnixAsynchronousSocketChannelImpl.java:217)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.KQueuePort$EventHandlerTask.run(KQueuePort.java:312)
at java.base/sun.nio.ch.AsynchronousChannelGroupImpl$1.run(AsynchronousChannelGroupImpl.java:113)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1136)
at java.base/java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(ThreadPoolExecutor.java:635)
at java.base/java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:833)
According to the stacktrace, something seems to go wrong in the BSON filtering part, despite there being none. When I use the MongoDB compass to validate the object inside of the database, I can see that everything is initialised and written perfectly fine:
The normal id field is used in my software internally as an ID.Event object type whilst the _id is used by Mongo internally.
Can someone point me to what the potential issue could be here?
I'm not familiar with Kotlin, but I'd like to dive into this a bit further:
If it wouldn't unwrap the second time, the Mongo Compass would likely reveal the _id or id field to contain a bracket { while these are currently mapped as expected (a String for _id and an object for id).
To confirm, the current structure of your document is (eg here in the playground):
{
_id: "7d51",
id: {
id: "7d51"
},
hiringDetailsId: {
id: "8392"
}
}
We can see that in your screenshot from Compass where the _id field shows the value being the string directly whereas the other two fields show that the values are Objects (that each contain { id: "<string>" } values).
The error is specifically stating that the code is expecting a string but finding a document:
BsonInvalidOperationException: readString can only be called when CurrentBSONType is STRING, not when CurrentBSONType is DOCUMENT.
I can't speak to the internal unpacking, but it really feels to me like the nested id.id (and potentially also hiringDetailsId.id) is the problem here. Even if it isn't directly related, it would seem to be an opportunity to simplify the schema unless there is a compelling reason to introduce that extra level of nesting.
I have a Recipe and a Tag model. Currently, the recipe contains an array of id's belonging to Tag:
#Entity()
export class Recipe extends BaseEntity {
#PrimaryGeneratedColumn('uuid')
public id!: string;
#Column({ type: 'varchar' })
public title!: string;
#Column({ type: 'varchar' })
public description!: string;
#Column({ type: 'simple-array', nullable: true })
public tags: string[];
}
#Entity()
export class Tag extends BaseEntity {
#PrimaryGeneratedColumn('uuid')
public id!: string;
#Column({ type: 'varchar' })
public name!: string;
}
However, I am currently not making use of the relational capabilities of TypeORM. I was wondering though, how would i go about doing this? Since the relation only works one way, i.e. the one Recipe having many Tags.
I could be wrong, but I believe by default, you must declare both ways--even if you only intend to use a single direction of the relationship.
For example, you need to declare that a Recipe has many Tags you also have to set up the Tag to Recipe relationship even if you aren't going to use it.
Given your example, you'll need to set up a one:many and a many:one relationship.
Since Recipe will "own" the tags, it will have the one:many:
// recipe.entity.ts
#OneToMany(() => Tag, (tag) => tag.recipe)
tags: Tag[];
Then the inverse will look like this:
// tag.entity.ts
#ManyToOne(() => Recipe, (recipe) => recipe.tags)
#JoinColumn({
name: 'recipeId',
})
recipe: Recipe;
If you're considering having many recipes own the same tag, you may need to consider using a many:many relationship
EDIT
I suppose you could technically store an array of id's in a column to represent tags for any given recipe. The question here is, what happens if you decide you need further info on any given tag?
IMO, (and it's just that so take all of this with a grain of salt). You are bending your recipe table to also store relationship info.
I have found it to be more helpful to keep my "buckets" (tables) as specific as possible. That'd leave us with:
recipes | tags | recipes_tags
-----------------------------
That way my recipes table just has recipes & that's it. "Just give me all recipes...". Tags is the same, "just show me all tags"
The two things are completely different entities. By setting up a ManyToMany relationship, we're telling TypeORM that these two columns are related--without "muddying" either of their underlying data.
You can add/remove columns on the pivot table should you decide you want more info about the relationship. At that point, you'd still be working with the relationship, not a tag or recipe so your data would still be nice & lean!
Another example from one of my own use cases...
I have an Activity and a Resource any given resource can have one or more Activities. (activities = tags/ resources = recipes)
// activity.entity.ts
...
#PrimaryGeneratedColumn('uuid')
id: string;
#Column()
name: string;
...
#ManyToMany((type) => Resource, (resource) => resource.activities)
resources: Resource[];
// resource.entity.ts
#PrimaryGeneratedColumn('uuid')
id: string;
#Column()
name: string;
...
#JoinTable()
#ManyToMany((type) => Activity, (activity) => activity.resources)
activities: Activity[];
The above generates a resources_activities_activities table.
Within that table is:
resourceId | activityId
------------------------
I could add additional columns here as well. createdBy or status or something else that is specific to the relationship. Each entry in this table has a relationship back to the activity and the resource--which is great!
I realize we've gone outside the scope of your original question, but I think this is a pretty small step outside, for a potential big win later on.
When I make a request to get a resource: example.com/resources/123 I get something like this back:
"id": "123"
...
"activities": [
{
"id": "f79ce066-75ba-43bb-bf17-9e60efa65e25",
"name": "Foo",
"description": "This is what Foo is.",
"createdAt": "xxxx-xx-xxxxx:xx:xx.xxx",
"updatedAt": "xxxx-xx-xxxxx:xx:xx.xxx"
}
]
...
Likewise, any time I get an activity, I also get back any resources that are related to it. In my front-end I can then easily do something like resource.activities.
Suppose there are two models User and City
#JsonSerializable()
class User {
int id;
String name;
City? city;
}
#JsonSerializable()
class City {
int id;
String name;
}
Now suppose during API call, we've got a user model but in the city object model, we only get id not name. Something like this
{
"id": 5,
"name": "Matthew",
"city": {
"id": 12
}
}
But due to the default nature of json_serializable and json_annotation.
This JSON is not mapped to the User model, during mapping, it throws the exception.
type Null is not a subtype of type String. (because here name key is missing in city object)
But as we already declared in the User object that City is optional, I wanted that it should parse the User JSON with city as null.
Any help or solution would be really appreciated, Thank you
There is currently no support for ignoring a certain field only while serializing or only while deserializing. You can either ignore both or none. However, there is a workaround that I use.
Make a global method in your model file that just returns null like this:
T? toNull<T>(_) => null;
Inside your User model add a custom JsonKey for City:
#JsonKey(fromJson: toNull, includeIfNull: false)
City? City;
What this does is when converting from Json it uses your specificed function for converting city and replaces your value with null. Then due to includeIfNull property it just skips parsing.
If I have a table in a mongoDB with five properties and I only want to return four of them and none of the mongo added info such as v1 I can map the reposne to a dto like so,
const product = await this.productModel.findById(productId).exec()
return { id: product.id, title: product.title }
Is there a deconstruct shortcut for the return, to extract every field from an interface (Product) from the product response, to save typing each property out ? If for example im retunring 127 properties from a table of entires with 140.
interface Product {
id: string
title: string
...
}
Unfortunately no, typescript interfaces do not really exist when your program compiles
Interface is a structure that defines the contract in your application. It defines the syntax for classes to follow. Classes that are derived from an interface must follow the structure provided by their interface.
The TypeScript compiler does not convert interface to JavaScript. It
uses interface for type checking. This is also known as "duck typing"
or "structural subtyping".
So, you can't really read interface fields and then write some logic (you can maybe achieve this through reflection but it's a bad practice)
An alternative is to explicitly define what fields are to include/or exclude from your object
Suppose that I have an object with this interface:
interface Foo {
field1: string;
field2: string;
field3: string;
.....
field140: string;
}
What you can do here is to define what properties you want to exclude (you take the exclude approach here since you are returning 127 fields of 140)
// This isn't an implementation with mongoose (if you are using it),
// it's just to give you the idea
const FIELDS_TO_EXCLUDE = ["field128", "field129", "field130", ..., "field140"];
productModel.toDTO(){
const documentData = this;
FIELDS_TO_EXCLUDE.forEach(x => delete documentData[x]);
return documentData;
}
In this way, when you will execute the toDTO function your manipulate itself excluding (or including) the fields you want
I have a python graphene-django backend with an interface and two types, let's say
interface InterfaceType {
id: ID!
name: String!
}
type Type1 implements InterfaceType {
aField: String
}
type Type2 implements InterfaceType {
anotherField: String
}
I'm able to query this from my react-apollo frontend using inline fragments:
query {
interfaceQuery {
...on Type1 {
id
name
}
...on Type1 {
id
name
}
}
}
But from what I understand it should also be possible to query the common fields simply as
query {
interfaceQuery
id
name
}
}
When I try this, however, I get the error Cannot query field "id" on type "InterfaceType". Did you mean to use an inline fragment on "Type1" or "Type2"?
I'm using an IntrospectionFragmentMatcher.
Am I misunderstanding and this kind of simple access of common fields is not possible, or is it just not implemented in either graphene or apollo?
If you're seeing that error, it's coming from the server, not Apollo. However, there's nothing specific to either Apollo or Graphene that should prevent you from querying the interface fields without a fragment.
The error is thrown because whatever schema you're using literally doesn't have that field on the provided type. Maybe you updated your schema without restarting the service, or were mistaken about what fields were actually part of the interface -- it's hard to know with only pseudocode provided.