How do you handle smart invalidation? Or more specifically, how do I trust that you're handling smart invalidation _correctly_. Looking at the site, it indicates that calling a mutation like `editUser(id: 5)` would presumably invalidate the User type record with ID 5.
But how do you actually do this reliably? There's nothing in the spec that would indicate the argument ID maps to a record of a certain type with an id field of the same value. Max indicated that you make assumptions based on the return type of the mutation, e.g. editUser has a return type of User, therefore you can infer the relationship. This might be _generally_ true, but it's not 100% reliably true. Additionally, my mutations _never_ just return the naked entity type like this, there's always a wrapping payload type (philosophically, the mutation payload should contain points to all the parts of the graph that _may_ have changed as a result of the operation). Editing a User doesn't _just_ edit a User, the effects on the graph can propagate far and wide. Another point here is that my mutations are rarely just CRUD operations, but more CQRS in nature, they're built to support a specific system capability rather than allowing generic write operations.
The problem of smart invalidation seems to have the exact same shape as smart store invalidation/updates after a mutation in the client. Even after all these years, Relay only does fairly superficial automatic updates, you nearly always have to use custom updaters (or client-side directives in some cases) to get the client-side store back in sync after anything but the most trivial mutations.