This repository was archived by the owner on Feb 26, 2023. It is now read-only.
Support @FragmentArg on fields with type variable type #1445
Conversation
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
This simpler implementation allows to check type variables, too.
Contributor
|
I have no idea why this part of the code was done like that. It's, indeed, quite odd. |
Member
Author
|
Thanks! I hope it does not break anything... |
Merged
yDelouis
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 14, 2015
Support @FragmentArg on fields with type variable type
Contributor
|
Thanks. |
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@yDelouis i wonder we may have to use TypeKind.ERROR, too (or instead)?
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Related to #1444.
The old code has lots of things like this:
So basically serialize the type to a string, the reload the type from it. It is totally unnecessary in most cases i think, but it is maybe an old workaround that i do not know. All tests pass and my projects are working with the new way. @DayS @yDelouis any thoughts whether the old method was intentional or not?