So I'm trying to write an Integration test for my query that accepts a file (Upload scalar) from Apollo.
#Test
void imageFromSimilarImage() throws IOException {
when(imageService.findBySimilarImage(/*** some-file ***/)).thenReturn(TEST_IMAGE_LIST);
GraphQLResponse response = graphQLTestTemplate.postForResource("graphql/image-from-similar-image.graphql");
assertThat(response.isOk()).isTrue();
assertThat(response.getList("$.data.imageFromSimilarImage", Image.class)).contains(TEST_IMAGE_A);
}
my image-from-similar-image.graphql file:
query {
imageFromSimilarImage(file: /*** "some-file-content" ***/) {
url
cloudinaryId
tags {
value
}
}
}
My original graphql schema, image.graphql file, if needed...
scalar Upload
schema {
query: Query
mutation: Mutation
}
type Image {
id: ID!
cloudinaryId: String!
url: String!
tags: [Tag]
}
type Tag {
id: ID!
value: String!
image: Image!
}
type Query {
imageFromTag(tags : [String!]!): [Image]
imageFromSimilarImage(file: Upload!): [Image]
allImages : [Image]
}
type Mutation {
createImage(files: [Upload!]!) : [Image]
}
Any ideas? I've browsed around for this , however couldn't find anything, with Junit ...
I solved this by changing the signature of my query imageFromSimilarImage to the following:
imageFromSimilarImage(files: [Upload!]!) : [Image]
Basically what this allowed me to do, is to pass an empty array in my test graphql file,
query {
imageFromSimilarImage(file: []) {
url
cloudinaryId
tags {
value
}
}
}
and finally in my test case:
#Test
void imageFromSimilarImage() throws IOException {
when(imageService.findBySimilarImage(anyList())).thenReturn(TEST_IMAGE_LIST);
GraphQLResponse response = graphQLTestTemplate.postForResource("graphql/image-from-similar-image.graphql");
assertThat(response.isOk()).isTrue();
assertThat(response.getList("$.data.imageFromSimilarImage", Image.class)).contains(TEST_IMAGE_A);
}
However, this does change the behavior of the query, as in it accepts Multiple files, now instead of just one, although in my case this does not affect anything.
Just keep this in mind, and make sure it is acceptable in your case as well.
Related
I am building a sever with Graphql. I define a single query which should return a User type. However, in my resolver I am actually returning a string type: "Hello!".
The query executes in the playground without any problem.
My question: the return statement of the resolver expects a User type, instead returns a string. Why is it not failing?
TypeDef
type User {
id: String
email: String
name: String
}
type Query {
printUser: User
}
Resolver
const resolvers = {
Query: {
printUser: async (parent, args, context, info) => {
return 'Hello!';
}
}
When I'm making a request to my backend through a mutation like that:
mutation{
resetPasswordByToken(token:"my-token"){
id
}
}
I'm getting a response in such format:
{
"data": {
"resetPasswordByToken": {
"id": 3
}
}
}
And that wrapper object named the same as the mutation seems somewhat awkward (and at least redundant) to me. Is there a way to get rid of that wrapper to make the returning result a bit cleaner?
This is how I define the mutation now:
export const ResetPasswordByTokenMutation = {
type: UserType,
description: 'Sets a new password and sends an informing email with the password generated',
args: {
token: { type: new GraphQLNonNull(GraphQLString) },
captcha: { type: GraphQLString },
},
resolve: async (root, args, request) => {
const ip = getRequestIp(request);
const user = await Auth.resetPasswordByToken(ip, args);
return user.toJSON();
}
};
In a word: No.
resetPasswordByToken is not a "wrapper object", but simply a field you've defined in your schema that resolves to an object (in this case, a UserType). While it's common to request just one field on your mutation type at a time, it's possible to request any number of fields:
mutation {
resetPasswordByToken(token:"my-token"){
id
}
someOtherMutation {
# some fields here
}
andYetAnotherMutation {
# some other fields here
}
}
If we were to flatten the structure of the response like you suggest, we would not be able to distinguish between the data returned by one mutation from another. We likewise need to nest all of this inside data to keep our actual data separate from any returned errors (which appear in a separate errors entry).
I think I'm missing something obvious in the way GraphQL resolvers work. This is a simplified example of my schema (a Place that can have AdditionalInformation):
import { ApolloServer, gql } from 'apollo-server';
const typeDefs = gql`
type Place {
name: String!
additionalInformation: AdditionalInformation
}
type AdditionalInformation {
foo: String
}
type Query {
places: [Place]
}
`;
And the associated resolvers:
const resolvers = {
Query: {
places: () => {
return [{name: 'Barcelona'}];
}
},
AdditionalInformation: {
foo: () => 'bar'
}
};
const server = new ApolloServer({typeDefs, resolvers});
server.listen().then(({ url }) => {
console.log(`API server ready at ${url}`);
});
When I execute a basic query:
{
places {
name,
additionalInformation {
foo
}
}
}
I always get null as the additionalInformation:
{
"data": {
"places": [
{
"name": "Barcelona",
"additionalInformation": null
}
]
}
}
It's my first GraphQL app, and I still don't get why the AdditionalInformation resolver is not automatically executed. Is there some way to let GraphQL know it has to fire it?
I've found this workaround but I find it a bit tricky:
Place: {
additionalInformation: () => { return {}; }
}}
Let's assume for a moment that additionalInformation was a Scalar, and not an Object type:
type Place {
name: String!
additionalInformation: String
}
The value returned by the places resolver is:
[{name: 'Barcelona'}]
If you were to make a similar query...
query {
places {
name
additionalInformation
}
}
What would you expect additionalInformation to be? It's value will be null because there is no additionalInformation property on the Place object returned by the places resolver.
Even if we make additionalInformation an Object type (like AdditionalInformation), the result is the same -- the additionalInformation field will resolve to null. That's because the default resolver (the one used when you don't specify a resolver function for a field) simply looks for a property with the same name as the field on the parent object. If it fails to find that property, it returns null.
You may have specified a resolver for a field on AdditionalInformation (foo), but this resolver is never fired because there's no need -- the whole additionalInformation field is null so all of the resolvers for any fields of the associated type are skipped.
To understand why this is a desirable behavior, imagine a different schema:
type Article {
title: String!
content: String!
image: Image
}
type Image {
url: String!
copyright: String!
}
type Query {
articles: [Article!]!
}
We have a database with an articles table and an images table as our data layer. An article may or may not have an image associated with it. My resolvers might look like this:
const resolvers = {
Query: {
articles: () => db.getArticlesWithImages()
}
Image: {
copyright: (image) => `©${image.year} ${image.author}`
}
}
Let's say our call getArticlesWithImages resolves to a single article with no image:
[{ title: 'Foo', content: 'All about foos' }]
As a consumer of the API, I request:
query {
articles {
title
content
image
}
}
The image field is optional. If I get back an article object with a null image field, I understand there was no associated image in the db. As a front end client, I know not to render any image.
What would happen if GraphQL returned a value for the image regardless? Obviously, our resolver would break, since it would not be passed any kind of parent value. Moreover, however, as a consumer of the API, I would have to now parse the contents of image and somehow determine whether an image was in fact associated with the article and I should do something with it.
TLDR;
As you already suggested, the solution here is to specify a resolver for additionalInfo. You can also simply return that value in your places resolver, i.e.:
return [{name: 'Barcelona', additionalInfo: {}}]
In reality, if the shape of your schema aligns with the shape of your underlying data layer, it's unlikely you'll encounter this sort of issue when working with real data.
Given a GraphQL schema and resolvers for Apollo Server, and a GraphQL query, is there a way to create a collection of all requested fields (in an Object or a Map) in the resolver function?
For a simple query, it's easy to recreate this collection from the info argument of the resolver.
Given a schema:
type User {
id: Int!
username: String!
roles: [Role!]!
}
type Role {
id: Int!
name: String!
description: String
}
schema {
query: Query
}
type Query {
getUser(id: Int!): User!
}
and a resolver:
Query: {
getUser: (root, args, context, info) => {
console.log(infoParser(info))
return db.Users.findOne({ id: args.id })
}
}
with a simple recursive infoParser function like this:
function infoParser (info) {
const fields = {}
info.fieldNodes.forEach(node => {
parseSelectionSet(node.selectionSet.selections, fields)
})
return fields
}
function parseSelectionSet (selections, fields) {
selections.forEach(selection => {
const name = selection.name.value
fields[name] = selection.selectionSet
? parseSelectionSet(selection.selectionSet.selections, {})
: true
})
return fields
}
The following query results in this log:
{
getUser(id: 1) {
id
username
roles {
name
}
}
}
=> { id: true, username: true, roles: { name: true } }
Things get pretty ugly pretty soon, for example when you use fragments in the query:
fragment UserInfo on User {
id
username
roles {
name
}
}
{
getUser(id: 1) {
...UserInfo
username
roles {
description
}
}
}
GraphQL engine correctly ignores duplicates, (deeply) merges etc. queried fields on execution, but it is not reflected in the info argument. When you add unions and inline fragments it just gets hairier.
Is there a way to construct a collection of all fields requested in a query, taking in account advanced querying capabilities of GraphQL?
Info about the info argument can be found on the Apollo docs site and in the graphql-js Github repo.
I know it has been a while but in case anyone ends up here, there is an npm package called graphql-list-fields by Jake Pusareti that does this. It handles fragments and skip and include directives.
you can also check the code here.
I don't use Relay container, because I'd like to have more control over components. Instead of it I use HOC + Relay.Store.forceFetch, that fetches any given query with variables. So I have the following query:
query {
root {
search(filter: $filter) {
selectors {
_id,
data {
title,
status
}
},
selectorGroups {
_id,
data {
title,
}
}
}
}
}
Then I have to do some mutation on selector type.
export default class ChangeStatusMutation extends Relay.Mutation {
getMutation() {
return Relay.QL`mutation {selectors_status_mutation}`;
}
getVariables() {
return {
id: this.props.id,
status: this.props.status
};
}
getFatQuery() {
return Relay.QL`
fragment on selectors_status_mutationPayload{
result {
data {
status
}
}
}
`;
}
static fragments = {
result: () => Relay.QL`
fragment on selector {
_id,
data {
title,
status
}
}`,
};
getOptimisticResponse() {
return {
result: {
_id: this.props.id,
data: {
status: this.props.status
}
}
};
}
getConfigs() {
return [{
type: 'FIELDS_CHANGE',
fieldIDs: {
result: this.props.id
},
}];
}
}
Call mutation in component:
const mutation = new ChangeStatusMutation({id, status, result: selector});
Relay.Store.commitUpdate(mutation);
After mutation commitment selector in Relay storage is not changed. I guess that's because of empty Tracked Fragment Query and mutation performs without any fields:
ChangeStatusMutation($input_0:selectors_statusInput!) {
selectors_status_mutation(input:$input_0) {
clientMutationId
}
}
But the modifying selector was already fetched by Relay, and I pass it to the mutation with props. So Relay knows the type, that should be changed, how to find the item and which fields should be replaced. But can not intersect. What's wrong?
So, you're definitely a bit "off the ranch" here by avoiding Relay container, but I think this should still work...
Relay performs the query intersection by looking up the node indicated by your FIELDS_CHANGE config. In this case, your fieldIDs points it at the result node with ID this.props.id.
Are you sure you have a node with that ID in your store? I'm noticing that in your forceFetch query you fetch some kind of alternative _id but not actually fetching id. Relay requires an id field to be present on anything that you later want to refetch or use the declarative mutation API on...
I'd start by checking the query you're sending to fetch whatever this result type is. I don't see you fetching that anywhere in your question description, so I'm just assuming that maybe you aren't fetching that right now?