CamelCase vs snake_case (again)

[danlo]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

I'm constantly caught between switching between camelCase and snake_case as addressed in these previous issues:

• Improve "field doesn't exist on type" errors by suggesting camelcasing #4563 <- I like this solution.
• 🐫 the case for camelCase'd field definitions? 🐍 #4630

Describe the solution you'd like

if content comes in snake_case then displaying a warning "did you mean..." snakeCase would be great. #4563

Describe alternatives you've considered

none.

Additional context

I know this is re-opening a previous issue, however, I think enough programmers screw up often enough that a few minutes from everyone's time adds up to be a lot of time.

Would you please reconsider working on #4563 as this would save many people a little bit of time and greatly improve progarmmer expierence.

Regards,

-daniel

[rmosolgo]

Hey, thanks for the suggestion. I'm open to it, it looks like DidYouMean has a handy direct-use API: https://github.com/ruby/did_you_mean?tab=readme-ov-file#using-the-didyoumeanspellchecker

Want to give it a shot? Here's where the "field doesn't exist on type" error is created:

graphql-ruby/lib/graphql/static_validation/rules/fields_are_defined_on_type.rb

Lines 17 to 21 in 4e241f8

	add_error(GraphQL::StaticValidation::FieldsAreDefinedOnTypeError.new(
	"Field '#{node.name}' doesn't exist on type '#{parent_type.graphql_name}'",
	nodes: node,
	field: node.name,
	type: parent_type.graphql_name

You can get the options for field names using:

visible_fields = context.warden.fields(parent_type) # filter out any hidden fields 
possible_field_names = visible_fields.map(&:graphql_names)

I expect that plenty of existing tests will fail -- and pass after they're updated to contain "did you mean ..." ✨

Let me know what you think!