Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

Support both embedded explorer as well as embedded sandbox #4531

Open
theJC opened this issue Jan 23, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #4532
Open

Support both embedded explorer as well as embedded sandbox #4531

theJC opened this issue Jan 23, 2024 · 2 comments · May be fixed by #4532
Labels
raised by user

Comments

@theJC
Copy link
Contributor

theJC commented Jan 23, 2024 •
edited
Loading

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
We have different sets of customers where a subset needs to use the embedded sandbox (typically since they don't have sso access, or if they need to have schema obtained via introspection), and the rest use embedded explorer (and use enhanced capabilities found only in explorer)

Describe the solution you'd like
Today, Router only allows the embedded sandbox experience.
Provide the ability to make available both the embedded apollo sandbox AND embedded apollo explorer at the same time, via router configuration.

Additional context
In Apollo Gateway, we served both experiences to our customers by allowing them to hit /graphql/explorer or /graphql/sandbox urls depending on their use case.
@theJC theJC changed the title Support both embedded explorer as well as sandbox Support both embedded explorer as well as embedded sandbox Jan 23, 2024
@burn2delete burn2delete linked a pull request Jan 23, 2024 that will close this issue
Open
6 tasks
@abernix
Copy link
Member

abernix commented Jan 29, 2024

Thanks for opening this!

My suggestion depends on whether or not you're building Rust plugins, but I'm curious if you've looked at using web_endpoints and if that possibility offers you enough flexibility to do something hyper-custom for your needs?

Beyond that, I'm curious if you have thoughts on if you'd want some sort of dynamicism in that "switch" between Explorer and Sandbox, or if it was purely based on the web-endpoint? (The web-endpoint above could probably do it on the path-based model!)

@theJC
Copy link
Contributor Author

theJC commented Jan 29, 2024 •
edited
Loading

We have not looked at this yet, thanks for the pointer/recommendation Jesse, will take a look and explore.

No need for any dynamicism, at this point we've trained our users to pick and choose a path based on the capability/needs of the sandbox vs explorer. 😉

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
raised by user
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

Added embedded explorer as an alternative to sandbox burn2delete/apollo-router
2 participants
@theJC @abernix