Add blog post highlighting changes in Relay 15 #4258
Conversation
| } | ||
|
|
||
| extend type Query { | ||
| fetch__RefetchableInterfaceFoo(id: ID!): RefetchableInterfaceFoo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would we expect people to write this in their schemas? @rbalicki2
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this works in OSS, then yeah, I'd expect people to either write it or (more likely) auto-generate it in their schemas? But I haven't checked that it "just works"
This makes me think we should probably include another parameter on the @fetchable directive that specifies what field... /shrug
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I mostly just copied this schema from the unit tests in the commit that added this. We don't use this at all so to be honest I was mostly just making this section up a bit
| algorithm: 'SHA256' | ||
| }, | ||
| featureFlags: { | ||
| compact_query_text: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why is this an option and not just always on? (not related to the blog post, just wondering if you know)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be hard to switch over hundreds of query texts in a single commit? Just guessing
| } | ||
|
|
||
| extend type Query { | ||
| fetch__RefetchableInterfaceFoo(id: ID!): RefetchableInterfaceFoo |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If this works in OSS, then yeah, I'd expect people to either write it or (more likely) auto-generate it in their schemas? But I haven't checked that it "just works"
This makes me think we should probably include another parameter on the @fetchable directive that specifies what field... /shrug
| algorithm: 'SHA256' | ||
| }, | ||
| featureFlags: { | ||
| compact_query_text: true |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be hard to switch over hundreds of query texts in a single commit? Just guessing
…res. Add note and example about using Relay Resolver terse syntax with non-schema type
ernieturner
changed the title
|
@davidmccabe Updated this to remove the VSCode extension content until we can finalize that PR, let me know if this looks good to you. Since I'm only editing markdown here I assume the failing unit tests are false negatives. |
|
Looks good to me, thanks for making those changes! |
|
Did you try rebasing to fix the tests? |
|
@davidmccabe I think this PR is rebased, or at least the GitHub UI isn't telling me that there are any changes from main that I don't have since I just rebased last Thursday |
|
@davidmccabe has imported this pull request. If you are a Meta employee, you can view this diff on Phabricator. |
|
@davidmccabe merged this pull request in 5df8aee. |
Try to highlight the biggest improvements in the latest releases. Some of these sections need more work and details and I also left an empty section at the end in case we want to highlight any upcoming changes to folks. Also open to reorganizing these highlights in any way we think is worthwhile, I might not have the most unbiased view of order of importance of these.
cc @davidmccabe @captbaritone