Improving relation transformers #36
Open
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
other relation transformers will be ignored
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
For my project I use morphManyToMany a lot. Unfortunately there was not implementation in StoreTransformer to handle such relations. So I decided to implement it.
Currently I handled just the case of morphManyToMany relation. I also created 3 tests to create, update, clear this type of relation.
I also seen some improvements potential in other relation transformers. I will probably also refactor them, when I have time. E.g. there is a way to handle morph relations without passing morhType explicitly (currently there is __typename argument for it).
BTW: It would be nice, when we add some documentation with examples for modifying such relations with store mutation... I should look into test cases, to find HOW graphql should be defined... May be I will do it next week.
What do you think?