I'd like to add NonNull to node and edges in connection.
class TestSchema(SQLAlchemyObjectType):
class Meta:
model = Test
interfaces = (relay.Node,)
id = graphene.ID(required=True)
when I looked at document explorer in Graphql playground,
in TestSchemaConnection
edges: [TestSchemaEdge]!
and in TestSchemaEdge
node: TestSchema
But I want "!" inside brackets not to be nullable like below.
edges: [TestSchemaEdge!]!
node: TestSchema!
Is there a way to do this?
I believe this is not possible, as of: https://github.com/graphql-python/graphene/issues/968
Seems like it is addressed as an issue, but not worked on.
Related
I have a large GraphQL schema containing scalar, object and enum types.
I want to print this in a format such that the hierarchy from all Object nodes to Scalar nodes is shown. My overall objective is find all leaf nodes of a particular scalar type (along with their lineage); for example String.
To better illustrate with an example. For the following schema:
type Book {
title: String
author: Author
}
type Author {
name: String
books: [Book]
}
I'd like to print something similar to:
Book.title [String]
Book.author.name [String]
Author.name [String]
Author.[books].name [String]
I am new to GraphQL and possibly asking a very naive question, but want to know if there is a simple way to solve it? I have seen this, but it doesn't really solve my problem and it seems I'll have to write the traversal (of tree) on top of this.
Scenario
I need to create a Kotlin class that can receive up to 4 arguments for its constructor, but only requires at least 1 out of a set of 3 (the fourth being entirely optional). To illustrate:
class Pie {
// Completely optional, the constructor should use it if present, otherwise it may be null.
var topping: String?
// Of these three [fillingA, fillingB, fillingC] 1 or more must be present.
var fillingA: String?
var fillingB: String?
var fillingC: String?
}
Thoughts
I've attempted to use Kotlin init{} blocks for validation, or telescoping constructors, but it gets ugly fast and I've yet to solve the issue. I have not found anything in the kotlinlang.org docs on primary/secondary constructors that is more elegant, though. My preference would be to find something similar to the #Size or #NotNull annotations, but I have failed to locate anything close.
It is important to note that I am using this class as a model for an API response.
Question
What is the most concise way to validate that a Kotlin class has at least 1 of a set of arguments passed to its constructor?
Are this fillings interchangeable? You could assume that fillingA is always required and the other ones are optional, something like this:
class Pie constructor(
val fillingA: String,
val fillingB: String? = null,
val fillingC: String? = null,
val topping: String? = null
){...}
I have a graphene mutation like this:
class User(ObjectType):
username = String()
class ImportUsers(Mutation):
class Arguments:
users = List(User)
Output = List(User)
#staticmethod
def mutation(root, info, users):
...
But graphene gives me the following error: AssertionError: Mutations.importUsers(users:) argument type must be Input Type but got: [User].
How can I have a mutation in graphene which accepts a list of objects?
I was trying roughly the same thing as you did.
Figured out that custom input types should inherit from graphene.InputObjectType instead of graphene.ObjectType.
class User(graphene.InputObjectType): # <-- Changed to InputObjectType
username = graphene.String()
So, having your User like this should solve the case.
Yeah so, basically, you need to have this:
class User(graphene.ObjectType):
username = graphene.String()
class ImportUsers(Mutation):
class Arguments:
users = graphene.List(User)
Output = graphene.List(User)
#staticmethod
def mutation(root, info, users):
...
Graphene has a List type. Also, I don't know if it's just me or not, but I think you need to have graphene.(type), not just the type. I am working on something very similar right now to this, so hopefully you find or found your solution, and if you do, let me know how it went! Hopefully I helped xD. I am kinda new to all of this so ye
I am using GrapgQL and Java. I need to extract all the children belongs to specific parent. I have used the below way but it will fetch only the parent and it does not fetch any children.
schema {
query: Query
}
type LearningResource{
id: ID
name: String
type: String
children: [LearningResource]
}
type Query {
fetchLearningResource: LearningResource
}
#Component
public class LearningResourceDataFetcher implements DataFetcher{
#Override
public LearningResource get(DataFetchingEnvironment dataFetchingEnvironment) {
LearningResource lr3 = new LearningResource();
lr3.setId("id-03");
lr3.setName("Resource-3");
lr3.setType("Book");
LearningResource lr2 = new LearningResource();
lr2.setId("id-02");
lr2.setName("Resource-2");
lr2.setType("Paper");
LearningResource lr1 = new LearningResource();
lr1.setId("id-01");
lr1.setName("Resource-1");
lr1.setType("Paper");
List<LearningResource> learningResources = new ArrayList<>();
learningResources.add(lr2);
learningResources.add(lr3);
learningResource1.setChildren(learningResources);
return lr1;
}
}
return RuntimeWiring.newRuntimeWiring().type("Query", typeWiring -> typeWiring.dataFetcher("fetchLearningResource", learningResourceDataFetcher)).build();
My Controller endpoint
#RequestMapping(value = "/queryType", method = RequestMethod.POST)
public ResponseEntity query(#RequestBody String query) {
System.out.println(query);
ExecutionResult result = graphQL.execute(query);
System.out.println(result.getErrors());
System.out.println(result.getData().toString());
return ResponseEntity.ok(result.getData());
}
My request would be like below
{
fetchLearningResource
{
name
}
}
Can anybody please help me to sort this ?
Because I get asked this question a lot in real life, I'll answer it in detail here so people have easier time googling (and I have something to point at).
As noted in the comments, the selection for each level has to be explicit and there is no notion of an infinitely recursive query like get everything under a node to the bottom (or get all children of this parent recursively to the bottom).
The reason is mostly that allowing such queries could easily put you in a dangerous situation: a user would be able to request the entire object graph from the server in one easy go! For any non-trivial data size, this would kill the server and saturate the network in no time. Additionally, what would happen once a recursive relationship is encountered?
Still, there is a semi-controlled escape-hatch you could use here. If the scope in which you need everything is limited (and it really should be), you could map the output type of a specific query as a (complex) scalar.
In your case, this would mean mapping LearningResource as a scalar. Then, fetchLearningResource would effectively be returning a JSON blob, where the blob would happen to be all the children and their children recursively. Query resolution doesn't descent deeper once a scalar field is reached, as scalars are leaf nodes, so it can't keep resolving the children level-by-level. This means you'd have to recursively fetch everything in one go, by yourself, as GraphQL engine can't help you here. It also means sub-selections become impossible (as scalars can't have sub-selections - again, they're leaf nodes), so the client would always get all the children and all the fields from each child back. If you still need the ability to limit the selection in certain cases, you can expose 2 different queries e.g. fetchLearningResource and fetchAllLearningResources, where the former would be mapped as it is now, and the latter would return the scalar as explained.
An object scalar implementation is provided by the graphql-java ExtendedScalars project.
The schema could then look like:
schema {
query: Query
}
scalar Object
type Query {
fetchLearningResource: Object
}
And you'd use the method above to produce the scalar implementation:
RuntimeWiring.newRuntimeWiring()
.scalar(ExtendedScalars.Object) //register the scalar impl
.type("Query", typeWiring -> typeWiring.dataFetcher("fetchLearningResource", learningResourceDataFetcher)).build();
Depending on how you process the results of this query, the DataFetcher for fetchLearningResource may need to turn the resulting object into a map-of-maps (JSON-like object) before returning to the client. If you simply JSON-serialize the result anyway, you can likely skip this. Note that you're side-stepping all safety mechanisms here and must take care not to produce enormous results. By extension, if you need this in many places, you're very likely using a completely wrong technology for your problem.
I have not tested this with your code myself, so I might have skipped something important, but this should be enough to get you (or anyone googling) onto the right track (if you're sure this is the right track).
UPDATE: I've seen someone implement a custom Instrumentation that rewrites the query immediately after it's parsed, and adds all fields to the selection set if no field had already been selected, recursively. This effectively allows them to select everything implicitly.
In graphql-java v11 and prior, you could mutate the parsed query (represented by the Document class), but as of v12, it will no longer be possible, but instrumentations in turn gain the ability to replace the Document explicitly via the new instrumentDocument method.
Of course, this only makes sense if your schema is such that it can not be exploited or you fully control the client so there's no danger. You could also only do it selectively for some types, but it would be extremely confusing to use.
Situation
I have a class that holds a generic type, and it also has a non-zero arg constructor. I don't want to expose a zero arg constructor because it can lead to erroneous data.
public class Geometries<T extends AbstractGeometry>{
private final GeometryType geometryType;
private Collection<T> geometries;
public Geometries(Class<T> classOfT) {
this.geometryType = lookup(classOfT);//strict typing.
}
}
There are several (known and final) classes that may extend AbstractGeometry.
public final Point extends AbstractGeometry{ ....}
public final Polygon extends AbstractGeometry{ ....}
Example json:
{
"geometryType" : "point",
"geometries" : [
{ ...contents differ... hence AbstractGeometry},
{ ...contents differ... hence AbstractGeometry},
{ ...contents differ... hence AbstractGeometry}
]
}
Question
How can I write a JsonDeserializer that will deserialize a Generic Typed class (such as Geometires)?
CHEERS :)
p.s. I don't believe I need a JsonSerializer, this should work out of the box :)
Note: This answer was based on the first version of the question. The edits and subsequent question(s) change things.
p.s. I don't believe I need a JsonSerializer, this should work out of the box :)
That's not the case at all. The JSON example you posted does not match the Java class structure you apparently want to bind to and generate.
If you want JSON like that from Java like that, you'll definitely need custom serialization processing.
The JSON structure is
an object with two elements
element 1 is a string named "geometryType"
element 2 is an object named "geometries", with differing elements based on type
The Java structure is
an object with two fields
field 1, named "geometryType", is a complex type GeometryType
field 2, named "geometries" is a Collection of AbstractGeometry objects
Major Differences:
JSON string does not match Java type GeometryType
JSON object does not match Java type Collection
Given this Java structure, a matching JSON structure would be
an object with two elements
element 1, named "geometryType", is a complex object, with elements matching the fields in GeometryType
element 2, named "geometries", is a collection of objects, where the elements of the different objects in the collection differ based on specific AbstractGeometry types
Are you sure that what you posted is really what you intended? I'm guessing that either or both of the structures should be changed.
Regarding any question on polymorphic deserialization, please note that the issue was discussed a few times on StackOverflow.com already. I posted a link to four different such questions and answers (some with code examples) at Can I instantiate a superclass and have a particular subclass be instantiated based on the parameters supplied.