How to define double nested array in schema

[takotuesday]

I am trying to do the following:

// Schema definitions
const typeDefs = `
type Chart {
  name: String
  series: [Series]
}

type Series {
  name: String!
  data: [[Int, Float]]
}
`

where Series.data is an array of data points. Each data point is an array of x,y coordinates. For this use case a point cannot be an object with x,y keys, it must be an array. This fails to build because GraphQL does not like the definition of data: [[Int, Float]]. I have scoured the internet, GitHub, and stackoverflow. What is the solution/workaround for this? Thanks

[IvanGoncharov]

GraphQL doesn't support tuples, but you can write this:

type Chart {
  name: String
  series: [Series]
}

type Series {
  name: String!
  data: [DataPoint]
}

type DataPoint {
  x: Int
  y: Float
}

[takotuesday]

@IvanGoncharov thank you for the prompt response. Unfortunately as I mentioned in my original post, For this use case a point cannot be an object with x,y keys, it must be an array. The charting framework I'm using on the front end requires tuples for large data sets. The only work around with your suggestion is to normalize the data on the front end, converting a point from an object to an array. This is not performant and slows down the page load. Are you aware of a custom scalar tuple type? It seems like my use case shouldn't be that rare.

[IvanGoncharov]

For this use case a point cannot be an object with x,y keys, it must be an array

Missed that. Another less than ideal solutions is:

type Series {
  name: String!
  data: [[Float]]
}

Are you aware of a custom scalar tuple type? It seems like my use case shouldn't be that rare.

My opinion is that GraphQL is more about modeling data than to adapting data to particular library/framework. If you think that GraphQL must have tuple support you need to answer this questionary:

Here is Lee talk where he explains every question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mePT9MNTM98&feature=youtu.be&t=20m32s

4. Can we enable it without a change to GraphQL?
5. If so how awkward is it?

Personally, I think there is nothing awkward about having:

type DataPoint {
  x: Int
  y: Float
}

If you think differently please open a separate issue about adding tuple support to GraphQL and include answers to above questions into the description.

[Atokulus]

Hi there
I believe, in case of large numeric datasets, data reduction (think about cellular networks) and reduction of computational workload is a valid reason for tuple support and should be another goal of GraphQL. Let's face it:

• There is a plurality of use cases in IoT and industry which require datasets of [(Int, Float)] (Timestamp and Value) to be sent to a client for data visualization. Yet the workers' handheld devices are characterised by low performance and poor connection.
• Data Analytics is an important domain in research and at larger companies (such as Facebook) and might benefit from better performance.

I am therefore "in favor of change"

Best regards

Markus Wegmann
Technokrat LLC

[mike-marcacci]

GraphQL doesn't specify the format of data over the wire; it only happens to most often be used with JSON because of its ease and relative efficiency when combined with gzip. If payload size is especially important to your use-case, it's probably more productive to explore changes to serialization than to the query language itself. For example, it's totally possible to compile a query into a highly-optimized serialization format that can omit structural data because it's known ahead of time.

Alternatively (and more simply), if you have no need for GraphQL's ability to request partial data or provide field arguments, your value is already effectively a scalar. If you'd like to define an ultra-concise format for something like IoT measurements or analytics, it's trivial to create a custom scalar for these values in GraphQL.

[klebba]

Surprising limitation

[dlamon1]

The thumb ups in this thread are aggressive.

[doylemark]

Why is this closed?

[r0kk3rz]

A +1 for including tuples is for incorporating the GeoJSON IETF standard as a type where the Geometry part is specified in float arrays [[float, float], ... ]

Instead of having to convert the nested arrays to objects, and then convert them back into arrays to maintain compatibility with the standard

Full example:

{
       "type": "Feature",
       "geometry": {
           "type": "Polygon",
           "coordinates": [
               [
                   [100.0, 0.0],
                   [101.0, 0.0],
                   [101.0, 1.0],
                   [100.0, 1.0],
                   [100.0, 0.0]
               ]
           ]
}

[thespacedeck]

+1 for adding support for GeoJSON

[benjie]

For GeoJSON I'm not sure how useful partial selection is, would it make more sense to use a custom scalar for GeoJSON so that each entry is its own atomic element? We could put up a shared specification at https://www.graphql-scalars.com/

[michaelstaib]

We did solve this for HotChocolate with a custom scalar. The main issue at the moment is that there is no spec for such scalars and I am sure all of the GeoJson scalars have some quirks :).

@benjie a shared spec would be great to get tooling support on this.