Where variable binding implementation #164
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
@anotender you need to create your PR with your changes to merge into my branch, not in master. Otherwise, it is hard to see what has been done. |
anotender
changed the base branch from
master
to
igdianov-where-variable-criteria-expressions
|
@igdianov done, I've changed base and moved one comment to your origin PR. |
igdianov
approved these changes
Aug 19, 2019
igdianov
merged commit 388851a
into
introproventures:igdianov-where-variable-criteria-expressions
igdianov
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 24, 2019
* feat: add support for variable where criteria expressions * Add GraphQLWhereVariableBindingsTests and fix variable name mismatch issue (#164) * chore: consolidate tests for where variable bindings * fix: polish conversion of ArrayValue
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
@igdianov I've added here my test case and one fix for your solution. However I am not sure if my creation of yet another PR for the issue is correct. Shouldn't we maintain it in the single one?