Fix logic for sibling branches when traversing fields #2635
Conversation
This file contains 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
👷 Deploy request for apollo-federation-docs pending review.Visit the deploys page to approve it
|
|
|
This pull request is automatically built and testable in CodeSandbox. To see build info of the built libraries, click here or the icon next to each commit SHA. |
pcmanus
force-pushed
the
sibling-branch-fix-redux
branch
from
6e6ba4b
to
d970a83
Compare
The `FieldsConflictValidator.forField()` method of the previous patch was incorret: when we traverse a field, we were only keeping the one branch for that field, but the subselection of a field needs to merge correctly with the subselection of any other branch that has the same response name.
pcmanus
force-pushed
the
sibling-branch-fix-redux
branch
from
d970a83
to
004a2d5
Compare
sachindshinde
approved these changes
Jun 28, 2023
pcmanus
added a commit
to pcmanus/federation
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2023
…with conflicting fields Trying to reuse fragments, if done without specific case, can in some context result in invalid selections due to fields conflicting. It is to avoid that problem that apollographql#2619 introduced the `FieldsConflictValidator` mechanism (later improved by apollographql#2635). Unfortunately, in some fairly specific setups with nested fragments, the code was missing some data in the validation mentioned above, which led to still having case where a subgraph fetch may be invalid due to some fields (within reusing fragments) conflicting at some point of the query. This commit fix that issue by ensuring we take everything we should into account when doing the aforementioned validation.
pcmanus
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2023
…with conflicting fields (#2740) Trying to reuse fragments, if done without specific case, can in some context result in invalid selections due to fields conflicting. It is to avoid that problem that #2619 introduced the `FieldsConflictValidator` mechanism (later improved by #2635). Unfortunately, in some fairly specific setups with nested fragments, the code was missing some data in the validation mentioned above, which led to still having case where a subgraph fetch may be invalid due to some fields (within reusing fragments) conflicting at some point of the query. This commit fix that issue by ensuring we take everything we should into account when doing the aforementioned validation.
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 re-introduce the fix from the commits reverted by #2630.
The
FieldsConflictValidator.forField()method currently inmainis incorrect: when it traverses a field, it only keeps the one branch for that field, but the subselection of a field needs to merge correctly with the subselection of any other branch that has the same response name. This PR makes sure that all the relevant branches are taken into account.