chore: add clarifying note for composite and expand term#1078
chore: add clarifying note for composite and expand term#1078leebyron merged 10 commits intographql:mainfrom
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for graphql-spec-draft ready!
To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration. |
benjie
left a comment
benjie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I support the replacement of "composite types" in section 5 with more explicit language.
benjie
added
the
✏️ Editorial
|
@graphql/tsc Can we get another approval, then we'll wait a week or two for any more feedback and if no-one has concerns I think we should merge 👍 |
|
I’m OK with this change however I’m pretty sure the term composite type
shows up all over the graphql-js repository as well
…On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:03 AM Benjie ***@***.***> wrote:
@graphql/tsc <https://github.com/orgs/graphql/teams/tsc> Can we get
another approval, then we'll wait a week or two for any more feedback and
if no-one has concerns I think we should merge 👍
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1078 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMHUXEXI4CJAJERX75E6LYTS7Z7AVCNFSM6AAAAABDGNLD66VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNBTHAZTAMZSHE>
.
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
Keweiqu
left a comment
Keweiqu
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Makes sense! Thanks for doing this
Co-authored-by: Benjie <[email protected]>
JoviDeCroock
force-pushed
the
clarify-composite
branch
from
420b969 to
045a347
Compare
|
As suggested in yesterdays WG this has been replaced with a note about composite |
|
I was thinking we would keep "composite" out of the normative sections (initial PR)? And add a non-normative note that "composite" may be found in other contexts: Don't want to bikeshed this too much though so either is fine by me 👍 |
|
@JoviDeCroock I suggest you undo your force-push and then add a note along the lines of what you just added; essentially the change should be to remove "composite" from most places (preferring explicitness) and then to add a non-normative note indicating that previous versions of the spec used and some implementers use the term "composite type" to refer to Object, Interface and Union types. Also, the letter after |
JoviDeCroock
changed the title
|
@benjie the force push was just to update this branch with |
JoviDeCroock
changed the title
Co-authored-by: Benjie <[email protected]>
benjie
left a comment
benjie
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This one got undone accidentally I think!
Co-authored-by: Benjie <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Benjie <[email protected]>
8 participants
Resolves #1076
This PR adds a clarifying note for the term composite in prior versions of the spec and expands the term into
Object, Interface or Union typewherever it was found