feat(orphan-hoist-config): adds config for hoisting orphaned errors#8998
feat(orphan-hoist-config): adds config for hoisting orphaned errors#8998aaronArinder merged 1 commit intodevfrom
Conversation
✅ Docs preview readyThe preview is ready to be viewed. View the preview File Changes 0 new, 2 changed, 0 removedBuild ID: fbab985d98c32848dea8cd04 URL: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/deploy-preview/fbab985d98c32848dea8cd04
|
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
.changesets/hoist_orphan_errors.md
Outdated
| @@ -0,0 +1,23 @@ | |||
| ### Add `experimental_hoist_orphan_errors` configuration for controlling orphan error path assignment | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should phrase this changeset in a way where users are discouraged to try this out by themselves, instead it should only be enabled based on our advice (since there are spec-compliance concerns).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The prefix for this file is also currently invalid as hoist_. I think the prefix for this changeset should be the exp_ one to match the option.
| /// every element in an array. | ||
| #[derive(Debug, Clone, Default, Deserialize, Serialize, JsonSchema)] | ||
| #[serde(deny_unknown_fields)] | ||
| pub(crate) struct HoistOrphanErrors { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we use SubgraphConfiguration<bool> here? Notably it lets you use all + subgraphs (overriding the all configuration).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
oh, yeah, this should be how it's done!
goto-bus-stop
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM pending snapshot updates and using SubgraphConfiguration<bool>; probably someone else should do the actual approval after my working hours but the strategy looks good to me
f31c5ad to
63057cf
Compare
| all: true | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| These two configurations (per-subgraph and `all`) are mutually exclusive. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this is no longer true, now that you're using the SubgraphConfiguration wrapper?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
yeah, dang it, updating
ffdbf89 to
9445118
Compare
|
FYI Andy helped with a docs PR if we want to take those changes here or separately: #8999 |
9445118 to
852f129
Compare
4e2173d to
852f129
Compare
|
@mergify backport dev-v2.10.x |
✅ Backports have been createdDetails
Cherry-pick of 810241e has failed: To fix up this pull request, you can check it out locally. See documentation: https://docs.github.com/en/pull-requests/collaborating-with-pull-requests/reviewing-changes-in-pull-requests/checking-out-pull-requests-locally |
Checklist
Complete the checklist (and note appropriate exceptions) before the PR is marked ready-for-review.
Exceptions
Note any exceptions here
Notes
Footnotes
It may be appropriate to bring upcoming changes to the attention of other (impacted) groups. Please endeavour to do this before seeking PR approval. The mechanism for doing this will vary considerably, so use your judgement as to how and when to do this. ↩
Configuration is an important part of many changes. Where applicable please try to document configuration examples. ↩
A lot of (if not most) features benefit from built-in observability and
debug-level logs. Please read this guidance on metrics best-practices. ↩Tick whichever testing boxes are applicable. If you are adding Manual Tests, please document the manual testing (extensively) in the Exceptions. ↩