Can't add field in user (users-permissions)

[M1CK431]

Feature request

Please describe your feature request

• I have created my request on the Product Board before I submitted this issue
• I have looked at all the other requests on the Product Board before I submitted this issue

Summary

I would like to add some extra fields in user like firstName and lastName but adding them using Content-Type Builder doesn't make them available in GraphQL API

Steps to reproduce the behavior

1. Using the Content-Type Build, add a Text field in User
2. Go on http://localhost:1337/graphql and check GraphQL documentation
3. The added text field isn't exposed

Screenshots

firstName and lastName text fields added in user using Content-Type Builder:

Added fields not available in GraphQL API:

Why is it needed?

Since user is a central part for most authenticated API and adding extra fields or relations to user is a very common use case. For now, we have to manually write specific code to add extra fields (in addition to Content-Type Builder). Thanks @iicdii to remember me the way we do it in v3.

Suggested solution(s)

The added text field should be exposed, both on query and mutation.

Related issue(s)/PR(s)

None, since I have "transform" the current issue from "bug report" to "feature request" 😉

[iicdii]

You can just extend UsersPermissionsMe type with your custom fields.
path: src/index.js

'use strict';

module.exports = {
  /**
   * An asynchronous register function that runs before
   * your application is initialized.
   *
   * This gives you an opportunity to extend code.
   */
  register({ strapi }) {
    const extensionService = strapi.plugin('graphql').service('extension');
    extensionService.use(({ nexus }) => ({
      types: [
        nexus.extendType({
          type: 'UsersPermissionsMe',
          definition(t) {
            // here define fields you need
            t.string('testing');
          },
        }),
      ]
    }));
  },

  /**
   * An asynchronous bootstrap function that runs before
   * your application gets started.
   *
   * This gives you an opportunity to set up your data model,
   * run jobs, or perform some special logic.
   */
  bootstrap({ strapi }) {},

  /**
   * An asynchronous destroy function that runs before
   * your application gets shut down.
   *
   * This gives you an opportunity to gracefully stop services you run.
   */
  destroy({ strapi }) {},
};

[M1CK431]

Hi @iicdii and thanks for your quick reply.

Just to be sure, the proposed solution is a workaround?
The v3 behavior (where we just need to add fields using Content-Type builder) is the target?

Thanks again

[iicdii]

I remember you had to add fields manually in UsersPermissionsMe type in v3 either like below.

// api/extensions/users-permissions/config/schema.graphql.js
module.exports = {
  definition: `
    extend type UsersPermissionsMe {
      picture: String
      country: String
    }
  `,
  query: ``,
  resolver: {},
};

I'm not sure if Strapi team want to generate UsersPermissionsMe type dynamically, because they have some security concerns and etc..

[M1CK431]

You are right @iicdii , I have that file in v3 (sorry I forgot).
So now I have to do the same in v4, thanks a lot for explanations about how to do it 😘

Still, I think that Content-Type Builder looks like the intuitive way to extend the user schema and I can't see any drawback (because it's just extra fields, no impact on existing, locked, ones).

However, this issue should now be considered as a feature request and so I will edit my original message to reflect that.

Again, thanks a lot for your help, explanations and quick reply ❤️

[M1CK431]

Can confirm: manually extending the schema works as expected 👍
One of my two show stopper is now solved 👌

[derrickmehaffy]

This issue has been mentioned on Strapi Community Forum. There might be relevant details there:

https://forum.strapi.io/t/strapi-v4-cant-access-custom-fields-from-users-me-via-graphql/13744/2

[vitor-mariano]

You can just extend UsersPermissionsMe type with your custom fields. path: src/index.js

'use strict';

module.exports = {
  /**
   * An asynchronous register function that runs before
   * your application is initialized.
   *
   * This gives you an opportunity to extend code.
   */
  register({ strapi }) {
    const extensionService = strapi.plugin('graphql').service('extension');
    extensionService.use(({ nexus }) => ({
      types: [
        nexus.extendType({
          type: 'UsersPermissionsMe',
          definition(t) {
            // here define fields you need
            t.string('testing');
          },
        }),
      ]
    }));
  },

  /**
   * An asynchronous bootstrap function that runs before
   * your application gets started.
   *
   * This gives you an opportunity to set up your data model,
   * run jobs, or perform some special logic.
   */
  bootstrap({ strapi }) {},

  /**
   * An asynchronous destroy function that runs before
   * your application gets shut down.
   *
   * This gives you an opportunity to gracefully stop services you run.
   */
  destroy({ strapi }) {},
};

Looks like this solutions doesn't work for relationships.

nexus.extendType({
  type: "UsersPermissionsMe",
  definition(t) {
    t.string("name");
    t.string("phone");
    t.field("orders", {
      type: "OrderRelationResponseCollection",
    });
  },
})

In my example, name and phone works well, but orders don't.

[M1CK431]

Hi @iicdii and @derrickmehaffy,

With your approbation, I guess some tags should be added to this issue:

• issue-type: feature request
• severity: low
• source: plugin:users-permissions (or perhaps source: core:content-type-builder 🤷‍♂️ )
• status: confirmed

I would be very happy to do it myself but I haven't enough "karma" (yet) 😝

[derrickmehaffy]

Hi @iicdii and @derrickmehaffy,

With your approbation, I guess some tags should be added to this issue:

• issue-type: feature request
• severity: low
• source: plugin:users-permissions (or perhaps source: core:content-type-builder man_shrugging )
• status: confirmed

I would be very happy to do it myself but I haven't enough "karma" (yet) stuck_out_tongue_closed_eyes

We don't allow anyone but us and selected moderators to add labels yes :P

[derrickmehaffy]

While this was opened as a feature request, it's actually more like a bug, this part of the schema should be automatically generated. Assuming we can limit the population which I believe should be possible.

[M1CK431]

Thanks a lot for adding tags (and seriously considering a potential futur implementation for it) 🙏

While this was opened as a feature request, it's actually more like a bug

In fact it was created as a bug report (because I forgot I was forced to add some custom code in my previous v3 setup to make it work) and, after precious @iicdii advises, I "transform" 🪄 it as a feature request by editing my original message 🤫

I'm proud to see that the result of my "transformation" is so "plausible" that no one can detect it now 😆