feat: Remove restrictions for union/either types#761
Merged
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #761 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 73.38% 73.49% +0.10%
==========================================
Files 117 117
Lines 14145 14195 +50
Branches 1409 1421 +12
==========================================
+ Hits 10381 10432 +51
Misses 3738 3738
+ Partials 26 25 -1 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
zifeo
reviewed
Jun 21, 2024
Yohe-Am
previously approved these changes
Jun 21, 2024
Signed-off-by: Natoandro <anatoandro@hotmail.com>
michael-0acf4
approved these changes
Jun 28, 2024
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
In the previous versions, we restricted the variant types allowed in union/either to be all in the same category (after flattening multi-level unions):
Those restrictions can be lifted, and the selection field of an union-type field will have inline fragments with type conditions for each Category 2 variant. No type condition is required for Category 1 types, the selection sets are not relevant.
The case that is not handled by this PR is when one of the variants is an array of union type.
Migration notes
N/A