-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 103
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Support the fragment spread group when defining alphabetize rule's groups #2291
Comments
@dimaMachina, is there anything additional I could provide here to help drive the discussion forward? |
@dotansimha, sorry for bugging you here 🙇🏻 — I noticed you're one of the maintainers of this repo, and thought I might reach out. I'm not sure what the recommended path forward here is, and would love your advice or help with this issue and its proposed solution. I'd love to be able to contribute, and appreciate your help! |
Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I'd like to be able to use the alphabetize graphql-eslint rule, and keep all fragment spreads grouped together, preferably at the end of the selection set.
Describe the solution you'd like
The rule already supports the
groups
option, which supports any literal string or the'*'
string for "everything else."I'd like to be able to configure the rule this way:
So that this selection set:
Would end up being alphabetized this way:
Since this line uses the node's name, the
...
part of the spread is gone from the lexical comparison, which results in fragment spreads being sorted as if they were just regular field selections:Describe alternatives you've considered
I've considered supporting regular expressions in the
groups
option, but that seemed like an overkill, even before I realized that...SomeFragment
is anyways treated asSomeFragment
.Additional context
Not much to add. I did code up a solution locally, mostly to understand how it ended up sorting items the way it did, but I'm waiting for a discussion on this issue to conclude before moving forward.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: