Relax non-inclusion of schema definition.

[ddebrunner]

"should" seems too strong here given a schema can have a description and directives applied to it.

[linux-foundation-easycla]

• ❌ - login: @ddebrunner / name: Dan Debrunner . The commit (6fc6d63) is not authorized under a signed CLA. Please click here to be authorized. For further assistance with EasyCLA, please submit a support request ticket.

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for graphql-spec-draft ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	6fc6d63
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/graphql-spec-draft/deploys/65142564607d86000882d4d6
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1047--graphql-spec-draft.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[martinbonnin]

One alternative would be to add more conditions to the "should"?

"Likewise, when representing a GraphQL schema using the type system definition
language, a schema definition should be omitted if each root operation type
uses its respective default root type name, no other type uses any default
root type name and no schema directives are present."

I kind of like the "brevity by default" recommendation.

[ddebrunner]

and no description ...

[benjie]

We should keep the should for consistency - best that everyone generates the same SDL for the same schema where possible.

So I support @martinbonnin's proposal that we further narrow this case. I think the description was an oversight of #466 - that's the main thing to include right now.

Note that there are no directives that would be visible on a schema keyword currently when the schema is printed (via introspection results) as SDL. The only directives currently included when representing a schema as SDL are @deprecated and @specifiedBy, though this may change when #300 is addressed. (This is not true for the source SDL, but that's not what we're talking about here.)