question-wouldn't it make more sense to place the "?" on a property key? about gql2flow HOT 7 CLOSED

I think this is a bug. It should be as @capaj is saying. If the property is there, it should be of type "string", but if it's not in the object, Flow should be fine with that object.

from gql2flow.

Hmm, I'm not sure here. I think having the value as null makes sense

// GraphQL Schema
User {
  id: ID!
  name: String
}

... + some user query

// GraphQL Query
{
  user(id: 123) {
    id
    name
  }
}

// result if name is not set
{
  "user": {
    "id": "123",
    "name": null
  }
}

// Matching flow definition
type User {
  id:  string,
  name: ?string
}

from gql2flow.

Well, technically, the right way to do this would be to have all properties optional (since it's up to the client to only request what they want), and those that can be null should be maybe types.

description?: ?string;
target?: ?any;

Or, in the case of user:

type User {
  id?: string,
  name?: ?string,
}

from gql2flow.

Yep, thats the proper solution @petrbela. Thanks, will implement.

Edit: although correct it might be a bit too verbose on the maybe types, will be somewhat frustrating to work with. I'll add all three variations and a cli flag to choose with.

from gql2flow.

@joarwilk I would love to see that, right now if i need to update 1 property i need to set all of the other ones to "null" just for Flow to work.

This is an awesome project and thanks for your great work!

from gql2flow.

Whats the reason for not using | null?

from gql2flow.

It now defaults to making no assumptions about the usage and then you can use it how you'd like with --null-keys and --null-values (v0.4.0).

from gql2flow.