The rest api that I have to use provides data over multiple endpoints. The objects in the results might have relations that are are not resolved directly by the api, it rather provides ids that point to the actual resource.
Example:
For simplicity's sake let's say a Person can own multiple Books.
Now the api/person/{i} endpoint returns this:
{ id: 1, name: "Phil", books: [1, 5, 17, 31] }
The api/book/{i} endpoint returns this (note that author might be a relation again):
{ id: 5, title: "SPRINT", author: 123 }
Is there any way I can teach the apollo client to resolve those endpoints in a way that I can write the following (or a similar) query:
query fetchBooksOfUser($id: ID) {
person (id: $id) {
name,
books {
title
}
}
}
I didn't try it (yet) in one query but sould be possible.
Read docs strating from this
At the beggining I would try with sth like:
query fetchBooksOfUser($id: ID) {
person (id: $id) #rest(type: "Person", path: "api/person/{args.id}") {
name,
books #rest(type: "Book", path: "api/book/{data.person.books.id}") {
id,
title
}
}
}
... but it probably won't work - probably it's not smart enough to work with arrays.
UPDATE: See note for similiar example but using one, common parent-resolved param. In your case we have partially resolved books as arrays of objects with id. I don't know how to use these ids to resolve missing fields () on the same 'tree' level.
Other possibility - make related subrequests/subqueries (someway) in Person type patcher. Should be possible.
Is this really needed to be one query? You can provide ids to child containers, each of them runing own query when needed.
UPDATE: Apollo will take care on batching (Not for REST, not for all graphql servers - read docs).
'it's handy' to construct one query but apollo will cache it normalizing response by types - data will be stored separately. Using one query keeps you within overfetching camp or template thinking (collect all possible data before one step rendering).
Ract thinking keeps your data and view decomposed, used when needed, more specialised etc.
<Person/> container will query for data needed to render itself and list of child-needed ids. Each <Book/> will query for own data using passed id.
As an alternative, you could set up your own GraphQL back-end as an intermediary between your front-end and the REST API you're planning to use.
It's fairly easy to implement REST APIs as data sources in GraphQL using Apollo Server and a package such as apollo-datasource-rest which is maintained by the authors behind Apollo Server.
It would also allow you to scale if you ever have to use other data sources (DBs, 3rd party APIs, etc.) and would give you full control about exactly what data your queries return.
Related
I have setup a Gatsby Client which connects to Contentful using the gatsby-source-contentful plugin. I have also connected a simple custom API which is connected using the gatsby-source-graphql plugin.
When I run the dev-server I am able to query my pages from Contentful in the playground.
I am also able to query my custom API through the playground as well.
So both APIs work and are connected with Gatsby properly.
I want to programatically generate a bunch of pages that have dynamic sections (references) which an author can add and order as she wishes.
I do achieve this using the ...on Node connection together with fragments I define within each dynamic section. It all works out well so far.
My actual problem:
Now I have a dynamic section which is a Joblist. This Component requires to get data out of the Contentful API as it stores values like latitude and longitude. So the author is free to set a point on a map and set a radius. I successfully get this information out of Contentful using a fragment inside the component:
export const query = graphql `
fragment JoblistModule on ContentfulJoblisteMitAdresse {
... on ContentfulJoblisteMitAdresse {
contentful_id
radius
geo {
lon
lat
}
}
}`
But how can I pass this information in to another query that fetches the jobdata from my custom API? If I understand Gatsby correctly I somehow have to connect these two API's together? Or can I run another query somehow that fetches these values passed in as variables? How and where would I achieve this?
I could not find any approach neither inside the gatsby-node.js (since passed-in context can only be used as variables inside a query) nor in the template-file (since I can run only 1 query at a time), nor in the component itself (since this only accept staticQuery)
I don't know where my misunderstanding is. So I would very appreciate any hints, help or examples.
Since your custom API is a graphQL API, you can use delegateToSchema from the graphql-tools package to accomplish this.
You will need to create a resolver using Gatsby's setFieldsOnGraphQLNodeType API. Within this resolver, your resolve function will call delegateToSchema.
We have a similar problem, our blog posts have an "author" field which contains an ID. We then do a graphQL query to another system to look up author info by that ID.
return {
remoteAuthor: {
type: person,
args: {},
resolve: async (source: ContentfulBlogPost, fieldArgs, context, info) => {
if (!source.author) {
return null
}
// runs the selection on the remote schema
// https://github.com/gatsbyjs/gatsby/issues/14517
return delegateToSchema({
schema: authorsSchema,
operation: 'query',
fieldName: 'Person',
args: { id: source.author },
context,
info,
})
},
},
}
This adds a 'remoteAuthor' field to our blog post type, and whenever it gets queried, those selections are proxied to the remote schema where the person type exists.
Can the below be achieved with graph ql:
we have getusers() / getusers(id=3) / getusers(name='John). Can we use same query to accept different parameters (arguments)?
I assume you mean something like:
type Query {
getusers: [User]!
getusers(id: ID!): User
getusers(name: String!): User
}
IMHO the first thing to do is try. You should get an error saying that Query.getusers can only be defined once, which would answer your question right away.
Here's the actual spec saying that such a thing is not valid: http://facebook.github.io/graphql/June2018/#example-5e409
Quote:
Each named operation definition must be unique within a document when
referred to by its name.
Solution
From what I've seen, the most GraphQL'y way to create such an API is to define a filter input type, something like this:
input UserFilter {
ids: [ID]
names: [String]
}
and then:
type Query {
users(filter: UserFilter)
}
The resolver would check what filters were passed (if any) and query the data accordingly.
This is very simple and yet really powerful as it allows the client to query for an arbitrary number of users using an arbitrary filter. As a back-end developer you may add more options to UserFilter later on, including some pagination options and other cool things, while keeping the old API intact. And, of course, it is up to you how flexible you want this API to be.
But why is it like that?
Warning! I am assuming some things here and there, and might be wrong.
GraphQL is only a logical API layer, which is supposed to be server-agnostic. However, I believe that the original implementation was in JavaScript (citation needed). If you then consider the technical aspects of implementing a GraphQL API in JS, you might get an idea about why it is the way it is.
Each query points to a resolver function. In JS resolvers are simple functions stored inside plain objects at paths specified by the query/mutation/subscription name. As you may know, JS objects can't have more than one path with the same name. This means that you could only define a single resolver for a given query name, thus all three getusers would map to the same function Query.getusers(obj, args, ctx, info) anyway.
So even if GraphQL allowed for fields with the same name, the resolver would have to explicitly check for whatever arguments were passed, i.e. if (args.id) { ... } else if (args.name) { ... }, etc., thus partially defeating the point of having separate endpoints. On the other hand, there is an overall better (particularly from the client's perspective) way to define such an API, as demonstrated above.
Final note
GraphQL is conceptually different from REST, so it doesn't make sense to think in terms of three endpoints (/users, /users/:id and /users/:name), which is what I guess you were doing. A paradigm shift is required in order to unveil the full potential of the language.
a request of the type works:
Query {
first:getusers(),
second:getusers(id=3)
third:getusers(name='John)
}
I understand that mutations are sequential, so it makes sense to me that if Mutation 1 creates an entity and returns an id, that Mutation 2 should have access to that id. However I don't see any examples online and can't seem to get it to work. I see that people say you need to handle this in the resolve function of your route but it seems like extra unnecessary code if I can get this in just the query.
For example I have the following where accounts belong to clients and hence need the clientId before being created. However this does not work...
mutation createClientAndAccount($account: AccountInput, $client: ClientInput){
createClient(client: $client){ clientId }
createAccount(account: $account, clientId: USE_CLIENT_ID_FROM_ABOVE) { ... }
}
I've also tried nesting mutations but didn't have much luck there either...
Is what i'm trying to do possible? Would the resolve function of createAccount have the return data from createClient?
This is not possible right now, though would be useful.
See this PR.
Maybe using a custom schema directive we could achieve that.
Schema stitching will be a better approach(though usually it is preferred in API Gateway for merging APIs from different services).
If this requirement is very rare in your application, simply creating a new API that can do both CreateClientAndAccount is enough.
Pardon the naive question, but I've looked all over for the answer and all I've found is either vague or makes no sense to me. Take this example from the GraphQL spec:
query getZuckProfile($devicePicSize: Int) {
user(id: 4) {
id
name
profilePic(size: $devicePicSize)
}
}
What is the point of naming this query getZuckProfile? I've seen something about GraphQL documents containing multiple operations. Does naming queries affect the returned data somehow? I'd test this out myself, but I don't have a server and dataset I can easily play with to experiment. But it would be good if something in some document somewhere could clarify this--thus far all of the examples are super simple single queries, or are queries that are named but that don't explain why they are (other than "here's a cool thing you can do.") What benefits do I get from naming queries that I don't have when I send a single, anonymous query per request?
Also, regarding mutations, I see in the spec:
mutation setName {
setName(name: "Zuck") {
newName
}
}
In this case, you're specifying setName twice. Why? I get that one of these is the field name of the mutation and is needed to match it to the back-end schema, but why not:
mutation {
setName(name: "Zuck") {
...
What benefit do I get specifying the same name twice? I get that the first is likely arbitrary, but why isn't it noise? I have to be missing something obvious, but nothing I've found thus far has cleared it up for me.
The query name doesn't have any meaning on the server whatsoever. It's only used for clients to identify the responses (since you can send multiple queries/mutations in a single request).
In fact, you can send just an anonymous query object if that's the only thing in the GraphQL request (and doesn't have any parameters):
{
user(id: 4) {
id
name
profilePic(size: 200)
}
}
This only works for a query, not mutation.
EDIT:
As #orta notes below, the name could also be used by the server to identify a persistent query. However, this is not part of the GraphQL spec, it's just a custom implementation on top.
We use named queries so that they can be monitored consistently, and so that we can do persistent storage of a query. The duplication is there for query variables to fill the gaps.
As an example:
query getArtwork($id: String!) {
artwork(id: $id) {
title
}
}
You can run it against the Artsy GraphQL API here
The advantage is that the same query each time, not a different string because the query variables are the bit that differs. This means you can build tools on top of those queries because you can treat them as immutable.
I have a rather simple ActiveRecords associations like such (specifically in Rails 4):
An organization has many users
A user belongs to an organization
But in terms of ActiveReocord queries, what's an optimal way to construct a query to return an array of Organizations each with its own array of user ids associated with itself? Basically, I'd like to return the following data structure:
#<ActiveRecord::Relation [#<Organization id: 1, name: "org name",.... user_ids: [1,2,3]>, <Organization id: 2...>]>
... or to distill it even further in JSON:
[{id: 1, name: 'org name', ... user_ids: [1,2,3]}, {...}]
where users is not part of the Organizations table but simply an attribute constructed on the fly by ActiveRecord.
Thanks in advance.
EDIT: After trying a few things out, I came up with something that returned the result in the format I was looking for. But I'm still not sure (nor convinced) if this is the most optimal query:
Organization.joins(:users).select("organizations.*, '[#{User.joins(:organization).pluck(:id).join(',')}]' as user_ids").group('organizations.id')
Alternatively, the JBuilder/Rabl approach #Kien Thanh suggested seem very reasonable and approachable. Is that considered current best practice nowadays for Rails-based API development (the app has the back-end and front-end pieces completely de-coupled)?
The only thing to be aware of with a library solution such as JBuilder or Rabl is to watch the performance when they build the json.
As for your query use includes instead of joins to pull the data back.
orgs = Organization.includes(:users)
You should not have to group your results this way (unless the group was for some aggregate value).
ActiveRecord::Relation gives you some automatic helper methods, one of which is association_ids.
So if you create your own JSON from a hash you can do
orgs.map! {|o| o.attributes.merge(user_ids: o.user_ids).to_json }
EDIT: Forgot to add the reference for has_many http://guides.rubyonrails.org/association_basics.html#has-many-association-reference