Fix union render with no UnionMemberTypes #1085
Merged
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
kdawgwilk
force-pushed
the
kaden/sdl_union_render_fix
branch
from
276a893
to
3c04ebe
Compare
kdawgwilk
changed the title
MrGrinst
approved these changes
Jul 7, 2021
|
Hmm, further down in the spec, I see this:
|
|
Interesting, I may be able to just not produce this type if there are no |
|
If we want to go that direction we should prob add validation for that so that those unions won't be allowed in absinthe if they have no |
|
I asked around about this, and the SDL syntax can define a "partial" type which can then be |
|
Yeah I think that's the right call @binaryseed. I think this is good to go then? |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Adds a unit test for a case that wasnt being tested for union with no types and fixes the issue. Spec says that the UnionMemberTypes are optional https://spec.graphql.org/draft/#UnionTypeDefinition
Resolves #1084