I have a few react components that mutate my server data and for now I have refetchQueries: [{query:myQuery}]. I need to restructured the data as a map for faster lookup time. How can I accomplish this? In Redux, I would have used reselect and in MobX I would have used #computed. As far as I can tell, apollo doesn't support this functionality yet.
I looked into:
#client directive, but this doesn't work for me since I have to compute the data on the server response.
reactive variables don't work either since I will have to change the variable everywhere I mutate the data, far from ideal.
There seems to be very little information out there about computed/derived values when using Apollo Client, the only reference I found was this one:
Apollo GraphQl Storing derived data
How about if you define in your schema & in your resolver some alternative (union) response structure? (not sure if this would work actually)
type Query{
books(mapBy:String): [Book]|JSON
}
so if you query (using it instead of mutation for simplicity)
query{
books(mapBy:"id")
}
it would return JSON
{
123: { __typename: "Book", name: "Dune"}
}
And if you don't want to return all of the Book fields in JSON, maybe pass extra param which would list actual structure you need.
Didn't encounter such problem myself yet, interesting. But otherwise, it should be done on client side.
Related
I have a theoretical question. As I know subscription parameters must exist as a field in the returning type of the mutation. This means that the type of parameter must also match the type of the field in the returning object of the mutation. Am I right? Suppose I get an array with channels ids in the mutation response. I only send one channel id as a parameter in the subscription. Is it possible to map a subscription parameter to an array at the mutation output? If the channel id exists in the array (field channelsIds), the subscription must work. Is it possible to write this logic in the scheme itself, or is it technically impossible?
GraphQL schema:
schema {
mutation: Mutation
subscription: Subscription
}
type Mutation {
testMutation(input: TestMutationInput): TestMutationOutput
}
type TestMutationOutput {
channelsIds: [String!]!
userId: String!
userEmail: String
userPhoneNumber: String
}
type Subscription {
watchTestMutation(channelId: String!): TestMutationOutput
#aws_subscribe(mutations: ["testMutation"])
}
If I understand you correctly you want to filter based on if the mutation's returned value is in an array that is passed as an argument to the subscription. Sorry to say that is not possible at this time. Subscription filters only evaluate to true or false and cannot accommodate any logic other than that.
At the end of October 2020, I contacted AWS support for advice on this issue. I think this answer may be useful to someone, so I post their answer.
Please allow me to inform you that the use-case that you have
mentioned in the case is currently not possible via AppSync. I
understand that the lack of the feature may be causing inconvenience.
There is an internal feature request already with the AppSync team to
incorporate this feature and I have added a +1 on your behalf. It is
worth noting, that once this feature request is with the team, it will
be up to the team as to if/when this potential infrastructure feature
is implemented, and because of the limited visibility into the
progress of internal development processes, I won’t be able to provide
an ETA regarding its release. I would request you to keep an eye on
the what's new page or the AWS Blogs as all new feature requests and
enhancements are posted there[1-3].
However we can suggest a couple of workarounds in this case:
Filter the required fields on client side itself after receiving the values on the client-side from AppSync.
If the values to be filtered are very limited we can use a fake mutation made with the help of a resolver mapped to “None” Data
source. In this flow, we would create a lambda function that uses a
DynamoDB stream as the trigger. The Lambda function is triggered
whenever there's an update to the DynamoDB table.
We can then include logic in the Lambda function to filter the
required fields and perform a mutation to AppSync. In AppSync, the
mutation which was called by lambda would configured using a resolver
mapped to a “None” Data source. The None data source type passes the
request mapping template directly to the response mapping template.
And when we subscribe to this mutation, we will directly get the
filtered data from Lambda that was used to call this mutation. Please
refer to [4] for a step-by-step description of this process.
But please note that this workaround is cumbersome and would require a lot of changes if the required field values keep changing. Workaround 1(handling it on the client-side) is usually the preferred way to handle this use-case.
Resources:
[1] https://blogs.amazon.com/
[2] https://aws.amazon.com/new/
[3] https://aws.amazon.com/releasenotes/
[4] https://aws.amazon.com/premiumsupport/knowledge-center/appsync-notify-subscribers-real-time/
I have an app written with reason-react using apollo-client. I have defined some fragments on the frontend to basically reuse some field definitions. I'm setting up automated tests for a components that uses fragments, but I keep getting this warning saying I need to use the IntrospectionFragmentMatcher.
'You are using the simple (heuristic) fragment matcher, but your queries contain union or interface types. Apollo Client will not be able to accurately map fragments. To make this error go away, use the `IntrospectionFragmentMatcher` as described in the docs: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/react/advanced/fragments.html#fragment-matcher'
I've tried setting up the fragment matcher according to the docs. The codegen result returns no types:
{
"__schema": {
"types": []
}
}
When I queried my server and looked at the manual method recommended by apollo-client, I noticed it would also return no types.
Another strange thing is that when I don't use the fragment matcher, I get the mocked response back but I just get the warnings from apollo. If I do use it then the mocked response doesn't return correctly.
Why would I query the graphql api for fragments defined in my frontend code? Why would I only received these errors when running the tests & using mock data, but not when running my actual application?
As the error states, the default fragment matcher does not work on intersection or union types. You will need to use Apollo's IntrospectionFragmentMatcher. It works by asking the server (introspecting) for information about your schema types, and then providing that information for reference to the cache so that it can match the fields accurately. It's not querying the server for information about the fragments you are defining on the front end, it's asking for data about the GraphQL schema that must be defined on your back end so that it can properly relate the two. There is an example in the documentation, also more information here.
As for why your server is not returning any types, that is a separate issue that would require more info to debug. If you're using Apollo Server, doublecheck your schema to make sure all the necessary types are defined properly and that you are passing them into the server when it's initialized.
I know this has been asked a couple of times before, but I have found no definitive solution to whether this is possible with GraphQL. And I have a strong feeling this should be possible as it should be relatively easy to implement due to GraphQL queries running sequentially in Apollo.
I have a situation where I'm doing a GraphQL mutation first on the client, and then immediately after doing a query which uses the results from the previous query. This causes a needlessly long response time waiting for the server to respond to both requests. The requests look like this:
mutation createWebSession($authId: ID!) {
webSession: createWebSession(authId: $authId) {
token
userId
}
}
query listUserPaymentMethods($userId: ID!) {
userPaymentMethods: paymentMethods(userId: $userId) {
id
}
}
I know that one simple band-aid solution to avoid making 2 round trips to the server is creating a new single GraphQL mutation endpoint that does both services on the back end. But that seems to defeat the purpose of writing modular, reusable GraphQL endpoints. As such, I'm curious if someone knows if Apollo GraphQL supports a cleaner way to chain 2 requests in which the results from the previous one are available to the next one as inputs.
Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
This is a limitation that specific to GraphQL in general. There is no way to do this in a single request for a couple of reasons:
While a GraphQL document may include any number of operations, only a single operation will be executed. If a document includes multiple operations, all operations must be named and the request must include an operationName parameter that specifies which operation to execute. In other words, while you can combine multiple queries into a single operation, or multiple mutations into a single operation, you cannot cannot mix-and-match queries and mutations.
Given any two fields that share the same "parent" field, both fields will resolve at the same time. The only exception to this are root level mutation fields, which do resolve in sequence. As such, GraphQL does not support any syntax that would let you reference another field and use it as the input to some argument.
One possible workaround is to include a field in your createWebSession payload type whose field is the Query type. I illustrate this approach in this article as a means of refetching queries but it would work for what you're trying to do as well.
I'm writing client-side code for an app that will query a GraphQL server. In a couple of places in my code, I'm passing around data that will eventually get turned into a query variable, so it needs to validate against a specific GraphQLInputType in my schema. On looking into some of the utilities that graphql-js provides, it looks like the isValidJSValue checker is exactly what I'm looking for, and its comments even mention that it's intended to be used to do just that.
The issue is that I don't have access to the GraphQL type I want to validate against as a JS object, which is what I'm pretty sure that function is looking for. I'm importing my schema (as an npm depdendency) as JSON, or I also have it in the schema notation. Is there some other utility I can use to get the JS type I need from one of those sources, and then use that to check my data with isValidJSValue? Or is there some other way I could go about this that I just haven't thought of?
You can use the JSON schema you have imported to construct an actual GraphQL schema instance using buildClientSchema here: https://github.com/graphql/graphql-js/blob/master/src/utilities/buildClientSchema.js
Then, it should be a simple matter of looking in the types field of the resulting schema to find your input type, and then calling isValidJSValue on it.
I'm curious, though - why validate the value on the client before sending it, rather than just relying on the validation the server will do?
I'm making a pretty standard AJAXy (well, no XML actually) web page. The browser makes a bunch of API queries that return JSON to run the site. The problem is, I need to add to the API interface each time the page needs to do something new. The new API interface is usually little more than a database query followed by mapping the returned objects to JSON.
What I'd like to do is to get rid of all that server-side duplication and just have the page make database requests itself (using the model interface), but in a way that is safe (i.e. just read only ones). I think this would amount to an interface for constructing Q objects using JSON or something like that, and then send that up to the server, run the query, and return the results. Before I go making my own half-broken architecture for this, I'm wondering if this has already been done well. Also, is this even the best way to go about eliminating this duplication?
Thanks
Search multiple fields of django model without 3rd party app
Django SQL OR via filter() & Q(): Dynamic?
Generate a django queryset based on dict keys
Just replace with operator.and_ where appropriate.