Refactor resolver creation

[nodkz]

This discussion was started here: graphql-compose/graphql-compose#281 (comment)

I was working under a new major version of graphql-compose-mongoose in my free time. And there was added 8 new resolvers and two old resolvers were changed with breaking changes. So according to these changes, I feel that storing resolvers in ObjectTypeComposer has the following disadvantages:

• no static analysis for resolver names
• no static analysis for available args when you are crating relations
• quite awkward mechanics of creating new resolvers and wrapping them
• no go-to support in IDE via ctrl+click for opening resolver definition

There is a long way but something already has done:

• There were improved typescript definitions. Now generated Resolvers know source: Model<IDoc>
• Created a new method composeMongoose which does not generate resolvers.
  • It adds mongooseResolvers property to TypeComposer with resolver generators. And when you need a resolver you may generate it in such way PostTC. mongooseResolvers.findMany() (before was PostTC.getResolver('findMany')).
  • Generating resolvers on demand allows you:
    • Modify TypeComposer in a programmatic way and only after that generate resolvers with customized fields
    • Safe memory and time on bootstrap server phase, because won't b generated unused resolvers
    • You may call resolver generators several times with different configurations.

And for now looks so:

import { schemaComposer, graphql } from 'graphql-compose';
import { composeMongoose } from 'graphql-compose-mongoose';
import mongoose, { Document } from 'mongoose';

const UserSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
  name: { type: String, required: true },
});

interface IUser extends Document {
  name: string;
}

const PostSchema = new mongoose.Schema({
  title: { type: String, required: true },
  authorId: { type: mongoose.Types.ObjectId },
  reviewerIds: { type: [mongoose.Types.ObjectId] },
});

interface IPost extends Document {
  title: string;
  authorId?: mongoose.Types.ObjectId;
  reviewerIds?: [mongoose.Types.ObjectId];
}

const UserModel = mongoose.model<IUser>('User', UserSchema);
const PostModel = mongoose.model<IPost>('Post', PostSchema);

const UserTC = composeMongoose(UserModel);
const PostTC = composeMongoose(PostModel);

PostTC.addRelation('author', {
  resolver: UserTC. mongooseResolvers.dataLoaderLean(), // <------ added `mongooseResolvers` with all resolvers
  prepareArgs: {
    _id: (s) => s.authorId,
  },
  projection: { authorId: true },
});

PostTC.addRelation('reviewers', {
  resolver: UserTC. mongooseResolvers.dataLoaderManyLean(), // <------ added `mongooseResolvers` with all resolvers
  prepareArgs: {
    _ids: (s) => s.reviewerIds,
  },
  projection: { reviewerIds: true },
});

schemaComposer.Query.addFields({
  posts: PostTC. mongooseResolvers.findMany(), // <------ added `mongooseResolvers` with all resolvers
});

const schema = schemaComposer.buildSchema();

UPD: in the code above generateResolver was renamed to mongooseResolvers.

[nodkz]

@toverux how do you think - generateResolver is a good name or not? Maybe you can suggest a better name...

PostTC.addRelation('reviewers', {
  resolver: UserTC.generateResolver.dataLoaderManyLean(), // <------ added `generateResolver` with all resolvers
  prepareArgs: {
    _ids: (s) => s.reviewerIds, // <-------  `s` infers its type `IPost` automatically
  },
  projection: { reviewerIds: true },
});

The whole example you may see above.

[toverux]

Awesome work! Increased type safety and performance will be much welcomed.

generateResolver as a property is strange because it looks like a method name/something that performs an action.

I'd rather call it something like resolversFactory, resolversGenerator or just resolvers.

But you may also want to give it a name that is specific to graphql-compose-mongoose, right? Like mongooseResolvers or something, unless other plugins could extend this object again in turn, but there's a risk of collision.

And there was added 8 new resolvers

That looks exciting! I see a new dataLoaderManyLean ; I'm curious, what are the other ones and will there be non-lean variants (if that's what I think it is, ie. mongoose lean documents, maybe we could configure that with a { lean: boolean } option)?

[nodkz]

@toverux { lean: boolean } option very good suggestion – opened issue for this feature #266

Yep, I also dislike generateResolver name. And I was right for asking your advise – mongooseResolvers is the best name! In our apps, we are using different data sources so visibility will be greatly improved for developers with UserTC.mongooseResolvers.find(), UserTC.elasticResovers.find().

[nodkz]

You may try a new version v9.0.0-alpha.6.
As a playground, you may use this test suite https://github.com/graphql-compose/graphql-compose-mongoose/blob/alpha/src/__tests__/github_issues/141-test.ts

In v9 will be kept to ways of generation TypeComposer via

• composeWithMongoose old behavior where all resolvers generated automatically
• composeMongose - new one where resolver generated only on call TC.mongooseResolvers.findMany({ ...cfg })
  

  graphql-compose-mongoose/src/__tests__/github_issues/141-test.ts

  Line 19 in a136386

  const UserTC = composeMongoose(UserModel, { schemaComposer });

I suppose that you'll very like testFieldConfig helper (execute integration graphql query without blowing the code). For field property you may pass any graphql field config object. With Resolvers it works a little better - it has simple auto-complete of args names and checks for required args:

graphql-compose-mongoose/src/__tests__/github_issues/141-test.ts

Lines 163 to 174 in a136386

	await testFieldConfig({
	field: ComplexTC.mongooseResolvers.findById(),
	args: { _id: { region: 'us-west', zone: 'a' } },
	selection: `{
	_id {
	region
	zone
	}
	name
	}`,
	})
	).toEqual({ _id: { region: 'us-west', zone: 'a' }, name: 'Compute' });

@toverux Please take a look. If you will have any ideas for issues - please let me know.

[nodkz]

@toverux can I ask you to review release notes for v9.0.0?

If you will have any questions, additions, or fixes – please write them here (or you may make fixes via PR for the alpha branch).
Thanks.