-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 54
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Maybe you should remove the "map" key? #11
Comments
In the early evolution of this spec/implementations there was no Looking at your suggestion, the first observation is that you would lose the ability to manage the file upload streams in resolvers. Middleware would block the resolvers until all the files have be received and temporarily stored somewhere, either in memory or as temp files to populate (in your example) This would mean:
In theory, if the scalars were able to reliably read the request context and they were able to return a promise, you might be able to remove the |
This question has been answered, but feel free to continue the conversation 🙏 |
I am getting error using above curl command
{"errors":[{"message":"GraphQL Request must include at least one of those two parameters: "query" or "queryId"","category":"request"}]} I am using webonyx/graphql-php library |
@gohelkiran30 that request is invalid, as it is missing the |
@jaydenseric I have tried it with map field also and the issue is same. I don't think the issue is with the implementation as its build on the graphql specifications. |
That sentence is hard to interpret. You mean to say that you are confident that the GraphQL server faithfully implements this GraphQL multipart request spec? I can't help you problem solve implementations, you should create issues in the relevant repos if you think they have a bug. |
I think that the "map" in the request is unnecessary. In my opinion it's much easier to do this:
cURL request
Request payload
Thus, it is easier to organize server-side support:
Example for webonyx/graphql-php
Example for nodejs
What do you think about this?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: