I am using Graphql within AWS AppSync. I can create items with no issues but when i try to delete one i get this error.
ConflictUnhandled - Conflict resolver rejects mutation.
i am using
deleteFavorite(input: {id: "ce8dfa4c-ef87-492e-9a87-f17d2f0b06c8", _version: 1})
from this auto created mutation
export const deleteFavorite = /* GraphQL */ `
mutation DeleteFavorite(
$input: DeleteFavoriteInput!
$condition: ModelFavoriteConditionInput
) {
deleteFavorite(input: $input, condition: $condition) {
id
productID
useremail
userID
_version
_deleted
_lastChangedAt
createdAt
updatedAt
}
}
`;
The answer was to make sure i was passing the same _version back to the delete rewuest
Related
I have a useQuery that returns data of the first item inserted. For context, I have an ecommerce website with grocery products, suppose I add an apple with quantiy of 4. Next, when I add another order with quantiy 10, it adds correctly in the database and I get correct results in the apollo playground. But when I am pulling data using the below code in Apollo client it has all the orders of that user with different order ids but has the quantiy of the first order made for apple.
const { loading, error, data } = useQuery(queries.GET_USER_ORDERS, {
fetchPolicy: "cache-and-network",
variables: {
userId: currentUser.uid,
},
});
Graphql query:
const GET_USER_ORDERS = gql`
query Query($userId: String) {
userOrders(userId: $userId) {
_id
userId
products {
_id
name
price
orderedQuantity
}
status
createdAt
flag
total
}
}
`;
So essentially I am seeing all products, but with quantity of 4 for each. How can I fix this?
Change fetch policy
fetchPolicy: "no-cache",
also check if you are updating this query result after new order placing mutation (if you are it may cause updating with wrong values )
if you set fetchPolicy: "no-cache" you don't have to update query result after mutation
I have a GraphQL mutation that creates an item and returns the data that's created. I need to pass some of the created fields into a query. Is this possible? This is almost working but I can't figure out how to get the data between the mutation and the query:
mutation {
createToken(
input: { tokenname: "my token", tokendescription: "my valuable token" }
) {
id
randomdata
}
insert__helloworld_article(objects: [{randomdata: "Hello" , author_id: 1}]) {
returning {
id
}
}
}
So my problem is getting "randomdata" from the mutation to insert into the helloworld_article
You wouldn't be able to use the return value in the same mutation with GraphQL, however if those objects have a relationship you could do a nested insert.
Please consider the following GraphQL schema:
type User {
id: ID!
events: [Event]
}
type Event {
id: ID!
user: User!
asset: Asset!
}
type Asset {
id: ID
price: Number!
name: String!
}
GraphQL is a fantastic framework for fetching nested objects, but I'm struggling to understand how conditional nesting is implemented.
Example:
I want to retrieve all events for a specific user where asset.price is greater than x.
Or
I want to retrieve all events for an asset that belongs to a list of users [].
Question: Is conditional nesting a concept in GraphQL and how is it implemented?
Side note: I use AWS AppSync and resolvers are fetching data from AWS DynamoDB.
You can define a filter/condition on any GraphQL query such as:
query {
users(permission: 'ADMIN') {
...
}
}
The permission param is passed to your resolver (say DynamoDb VTL template, Lambda etc) to be handled however you want - to GQL this is just another parameter.
You can carry this concept into nested field by creating an events resolver and you'd then call it like this:
query {
user(id: '123') {
name
events(minPrice: 200) {
nodes: {
id
eventName
eventDate
}
}
dob
...
}
}
In above case I am using a simple minPrice param but you could do more complex things such price ranges, even pass operators (eq, gt, ...). It's all irrelevant to GraphQL - all gets passed to the resolver.
How you implement that on backend depends on your setup. I use AppSync without Amplify and write my own VTL templates and build the DynamoDb request using the provided GQL fields.
Here is an SO post that shows how to create a date filter.
currently i've manage to post into strapi, but i cant set post status to draft. I am using graphql, and there is no post status in mutation. what I have to do?
thanks.
The way that I found to do that is just passing the property published_at as null when perform the mutation.
published_at is a default property that strapi assign to each collection.
For the query
mutation CreateRecord (
$recordName: String!,
$published_at: DateTime
) {
createComment (input: {
data : {
recordName: $recordName,
published_at: $published_at
}
})
}
and when is time to send the values
createRecords({
variables: {
recordName: "I am a new record saved as draft"
published_at: null
}
});
What version of Strapi are you using?
The Draft & Publish feature has been released recently. You should definitely give it a try: https://strapi.io/blog/announcing-a-new-draft-and-publish-feature
I'm struggling to figure out how this should work. I have an application that has a current user, so, the topmost query looks like this:
query AppQuery {
currentUser {
id
email
...Account_currentUser
...AccountEdit_currentUser
}
}
AccountEdit_currentUser is defined this way:
export default createFragmentContainer(AccountEdit, {
currentUser: graphql`
fragment AccountEdit_currentUser on User {
email
name
nickName
}`
})
on the AccountEdit component. That component commits this mutation:
mutation AccountEditMutation($email: String!, $name: String!, $nickName: String!) {
updateAccount(input: {email: $email, name: $name, nickName: $nickName}) {
accountUpdated
currentUser {
id
email
name
nickName
}
}
}
After that happens, the server returns the correct values for email, name, nickName, etc. How should those new values end up in the store? Because it doesn't seem to automatic. Do I need to write a custom updater? and update config? I tried it a few times but I couldn't get anywhere close to something that even throws a reasonable error.
This updating of the store happens automatically and the reason why it wasn't is because the node_ids of the current user in the original query and on the subsequent query were different. Once I made them the same, it started working.