You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Maybe I'm referencing about an issue already discussed.
I'm actually getting an error when executing a graphQl query which returns a UnionType with two different implements but sharing a field with the same name and different type.
I have looking for this issue and I found a topic called "safe divergence". Is this situation behind this concept?
I can't understand why two fields can conflict if they belong to two different implementations of a UnionType.
This is my example:
... on ManualCancellation {
reason --> of type A
}
... on AutomaticCancellation {
when
reason --> of type B
}
I hope you can guide me about this issue.
Thanks,
Patricio.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In general yes, I think so. Have you already see this discussion? graphql/graphql-js#53 I think it provides some context. Do you think that sangria implements this validation differently from reference implementation? (in other words, sangria's implementation is more strict)
Hi guys!
Maybe I'm referencing about an issue already discussed.
I'm actually getting an error when executing a graphQl query which returns a UnionType with two different implements but sharing a field with the same name and different type.
I have looking for this issue and I found a topic called "safe divergence". Is this situation behind this concept?
I can't understand why two fields can conflict if they belong to two different implementations of a UnionType.
This is my example:
... on ManualCancellation {
reason --> of type A
}
... on AutomaticCancellation {
when
reason --> of type B
}
I hope you can guide me about this issue.
Thanks,
Patricio.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: