> I've never written a GraphQL scema or query by hand, always used a good wrapper
Could you give me an example of a good client wrapper that doesn't require you to write queries as strings?
Could you give me an example of a good client wrapper that doesn't require you to write queries as strings?
To make it clear, I disagree I'm conflating things. I'm currently working on a TypeScript based graphql builder (https://typed-graphql-builder.spion.dev/) and I can think of several ways the language could've been designed to make it easier to write typed query builders.
This is not without consequences - since its quite hard to write the builder, most tools available for code generation (https://www.graphql-code-generator.com/) are built around editing GraphQL strings and will try to find them in your code and add type assertions. Additionally the rest of the ecosystem tools are built around supporting this workflow (graphql playgrund, etc)
Would you like to share them? Have you tried submitting your suggestions to the GraphQL core team?
Here is a few:
- Less fine-grained field selection - allow for fields selected by default. This would remove some of the need for optionals in languages that aren't able to dynamically create record types on the fly
- Implicit unions and union queries are really annoying to model in both OOP and FP languages. In FP disjoint tagged unions with no inheritance would work better; in OOP common interfaces but no ability to define unions would work better. As it stands, the mix makes it difficult on both language types to support a general schema. Unions based on optional fields (like in GRPC) are probably best-of-both-worlds here.