Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Make it easier to ensure the right fields are present for dataIdFromObject #380

Closed
dahjelle opened this issue Jul 11, 2016 · 21 comments
Closed

Comments

@dahjelle
Copy link
Contributor

Idea: should Apollo print a warning if dataIdFromObject is provided, but returns something falsey? Apollo currently uses it's default itemDataId or valueDataId if the response is falsey, but it wasn't immediately clear to me why my queries suddenly started breaking.

Happy to submit a PR if this sounds like a good idea. Would throwing an error or just logging a warning to the console be preferable?


My app had 2 queries:

A

{
  person(id: "5") {
    id
    prop_one
    prop_two
  }
}

B

{
  person(id: "5") {
    # NOTE: I forgot to include `id` here, so `dataIdFromObject` will return `undefined`
    prop_three {
      id
      prop_four
    }
  }
}

I also specified dataIdFromObject as

export default function dataIdFromObject(obj) {
  return obj.id;
}

Query A ran fine and stored data in the store. Query B executed later, but, since dataIdFromObject returned undefined (see the note in B), the store now contained

"ROOT_QUERY": {
    "people_one({"id":"5"})": "ROOT_QUERY.people_one({\"id\":\"5\"})"
}

instead of

 "ROOT_QUERY": {
    "people_one({"id":"5"})": "5"
}

which broke retrieving data for query A.

@abhiaiyer91
Copy link
Contributor

Ouch. Yes I think more warnings the better!

@stubailo
Copy link
Contributor

Totally agree, having a warning for this would be great.

Since this function might be called in several places, it might be best to just wrap it where it is passed in: https://github.com/apollostack/apollo-client/blob/82aa1aceaac589926479000fdd872cbe063c8a73/src/index.ts#L177

@Poincare
Copy link
Contributor

What about the case where we have a query that doesn't include an id? In that circumstance, we would expect dataIdFromObject to return a falsey value, right?

@dahjelle
Copy link
Contributor Author

It's almost as if, before writing to the store, one wants to look at the existing data, and if it doesn't "look" like the default key (i.e. ROOT_QUERY._), then warn if you are about to write over it? I don't know enough about the store format to know if that really makes any sense.

For instance, I see there are quite a few tests in mutationResults.ts that have a dataIdFromObject that intentionally is returning null. Similarly, if one had a numeric ID of 0, I guess that would be falsy, too, and I think that breaks several things.

(What's the proper spelling of 'falsy' anyway? falsy? falsey?)

@dahjelle
Copy link
Contributor Author

I started a potential change but I don't think this is the best design, if only for all the warnings printed in the mutationResults tests.

@Poincare
Copy link
Contributor

That's exactly what I meant in my previous comment. I don't think warning the user every time that there is a falsey value returned is a great approach because this seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do if we don't have an id for a particular object.

@stubailo
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah that's true - I think I misjudged the situation.

We should see if there is a way to warn people when they didn't have an id but intended to have one, but it's totally reasonable for not all returned objects to have IDs!

@dahjelle
Copy link
Contributor Author

We should see if there is a way to warn people when they didn't have an id but intended to have one, but it's totally reasonable for not all returned objects to have IDs!

Agreed.

I'm not sure I see a good way of doing that, though. Check if dataIdFromObject returns undefined?

Looking at this a different way, my issue was entirely due to a misshapen query: it didn't match what dataIdFromObject was expecting. Is there another way to define dataIdFromObject (i.e. a name of a field? a fragment?) such that one could easily compare against the query to see if they are compatible?

In my case, I'm not sure that this is a high priority for me any longer: now that I know what I'm looking for, it's not too hard to figure out the problem. On the flip side, for new users of Apollo, it's a pretty subtle and confusing problem without a good warning.

@stubailo
Copy link
Contributor

Yeah, this is definitely one downside of the current approach - that you need to manually make sure the id is in your queries. I don't have a good solution at the moment, but we should think about it more for the future. One option is to figure out some way to automatically add IDs to the query.

@stubailo stubailo added idea and removed feature labels Jul 12, 2016
@stubailo stubailo changed the title Should a warning be given if dataIdFromObject is provided but returns a falsey value? Make it easier to ensure the right fields are present for dataIdFromObject Jul 12, 2016
@saikat
Copy link

saikat commented Jul 23, 2016

I have an implementation of dataIdFromObject that does this:

dataIdFromObject: (result) => {
    if (result.hasOwnProperty('id')) {
      return result.id
    }
    return randomString()
  }

However, if I forget to include id in my queries, I still get this error:

Error: Can't find field displayName on object [object Object].

On a query like this:

    query: gql`{
      currentUser {
        displayName
        email
      }
    }`

Is this to be expected? I was hoping that returning a randomString would just duplicate the object in the client-side store, but not lead to any actual problems.

@Poincare
Copy link
Contributor

If you return a random string and this string is different every time that the we have to get the object from the server, that will cause problems in looking up the element when we want to read from the store again (i.e. the dataIdFromObject must be a pure function). Instead, you should just return "nothing" (i.e. undefined) and Apollo Client will take care of generating the id for the object.

Is there a particular reason why you would like to duplicate the object within the store?

@saikat
Copy link

saikat commented Jul 23, 2016

Nope, it just wasn't clear to me how to invoke the default action that
Apollo Client would take from this method.

On Sat, Jul 23, 2016 at 4:40 PM Dhaivat Pandya [email protected]
wrote:

If you return a random string and this string is different every time that
the we have to get the object from the server, that will cause problems in
looking up the element when we want to read from the store again (i.e. the
dataIdFromObject must be a pure function). Instead, you should just
return "nothing" (i.e. undefined) and Apollo Client will take care of
generating the id for the object.

Is there a particular reason why you would like to duplicate the object
within the store?


You are receiving this because you commented.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#380 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAFHRtRxZgcCPRZQV8W_BBHq9pJGeCqnks5qYnxRgaJpZM4JJZeI
.

@aweary
Copy link

aweary commented Jul 23, 2016

@saikat you can see the behavior in writeToStore

@saikat saikat mentioned this issue Jul 25, 2016
@joarwilk
Copy link

Do you have access to the GQL schema definition inside the client? A good case would be to log warnings when the id field is present in the schema but not in the query. I have some types without an ID and for those it'd be nice to not warn even though dataIdFromObject may return falsy.

Expanding on that case, a client setting which auto-includes the id field for all types which has an id in the schema would be very useful.

@stubailo
Copy link
Contributor

Right now we are trying not to require having the schema on the client or in a build tool, but I'd definitely be open to something optional that people can use if they want to. There are a few options:

  1. Load the schema on the client only in development, to provide the warnings mentioned above
  2. Load the schema in a developer tool like an ESLint plugin, that warns you when you are missing the ID field
  3. Load the schema in a build plugin, which precompiles queries in your code and includes these fields for you

Thoughts?

@joarwilk
Copy link

Having it as an ESLint plugin feels like it makes the most sense imo since it'd hook into most users regular workflow and you can add it on an on-demand basis.

@stubailo
Copy link
Contributor

We could integrate it as a new rule into this project: https://github.com/apollostack/eslint-plugin-graphql

@stubailo stubailo added feature and removed idea labels Jul 27, 2016
@helfer
Copy link
Contributor

helfer commented Dec 5, 2016

I'm going to close this since it seems that the consensus is not to do anything about this in apollo-client, but rather do it via linting. Once __id becomes a thing, we can open a new issue / PR.

@helfer helfer closed this as completed Dec 5, 2016
@stubailo
Copy link
Contributor

stubailo commented Dec 6, 2016

This is also a good candidate for the new Apollo devtools we are working on.

@spacebeers
Copy link

@helfer "Once __id becomes a thing". Could you elaborate on this please?

@stubailo
Copy link
Contributor

@spacebeers unfortunately there hasn't been much movement in this area but back in the day we were hoping that there would be a graphql spec standard for an ID field similar to __typename that could be injected.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

9 participants