Skip to content

Conversation

@Liam-Doodson
Copy link
Contributor

@Liam-Doodson Liam-Doodson commented Feb 22, 2023

Description

Implements #2722 and makes the require argument of the @customResolver directive accept a graphql selection set.

Complexity

Complexity: Medium

Issue

Closes #2481

@changeset-bot
Copy link

changeset-bot bot commented Feb 22, 2023

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: ded2b68

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

@neo4j-team-graphql
Copy link
Collaborator

neo4j-team-graphql commented Feb 22, 2023

Performance Report

No Performance Changes

Show Full Table
name dbHits old dbHits time (ms) old time (ms) maxRows
aggregations.TopLevelAggregate 3403 3403 34 39 1134
aggregations.NestedAggregation 13514 13514 96 98 2174
aggregations.AggregationWithWhere 10942 10942 74 64 2174
aggregations.AggregationWhereWithinNestedRelationships 20101954 20101954 2893 2888 2008534
aggregations.AggregationWhereWithinNestedConnections 20101954 20101954 2568 2588 2008534
aggregations.NestedCountFromMovieToActors 8694 8694 69 79 2174
aggregations.NestedCountFromActorsToMovie 8900 8900 56 61 2174
aggregations.DeeplyNestedCount 10054408 10054408 4111 4109 2008534
batch-create.BatchCreate 3600 3600 90 165 600
connect.createAndConnect 12419 12419 333 228 3003
connections.Connection 13042 13042 138 122 2174
connections.NestedConnection 33883 33883 113 123 4516
connections.ConnectionWithSort 2277 2277 58 73 1040
connections.ConnectionWithSortAndCypher 14278 14278 87 101 2174
create.SimpleMutation 6 6 32 33 1
cypher-directive.TopLevelMutationDirective 1135 1135 75 52 1134
delete.SimpleDelete 18361 18361 294 244 1040
delete.NestedDeleteInUpdate 16779 16779 146 172 2040
query.SimpleQuery 14120 14120 115 98 2174
query.QueryWhere 8667 8672 32 38 2163
query.SimpleQueryWithNestedWhere 8838 8843 54 55 2163
query.Nested 10084290 10084290 10298 10106 2008534
query.NestedWithFilter 37172 37172 159 149 4511
query.OrFilterOnRelationships 37719 37182 155 272 2076
query.OrFilterOnRelationshipsAndNested 31005 30694 229 304 2076
query.QueryWithNestedIn 12385 12127 131 88 1231
query.NestedConnectionWhere 8794 8794 94 85 2174
query.DeeplyNestedConnectionWhere 9009 8811 74 168 2174
query.DeeplyNestedWithRelationshipFilters 6251 6251 119 203 1134
query.NestedWithRelationshipSingleFilters 3021189 3021189 634 613 1003942
query.Fulltext 96 96 26 38 16
query.FulltextWithNestedQuery 571 571 41 47 84
sorting.SortMultipleTypes 2493 2493 61 77 1040
sorting.SortMultipleTypesWithCypherWithCypher 13416 13524 89 106 2174
sorting.SortOnNestedFields 13042 13042 63 86 2174
sorting.SortDeeplyNestedFields 38965 38965 114 112 4516
sorting.SortWithTopLevelCypher 14120 14120 54 54 2174
unions.SimpleUnionQuery 321 321 59 63 35
unions.SimpleUnionQueryWithMissingFields 293 293 54 61 35
unions.NestedUnion 398553 398553 351 325 33033
unions.NestedUnionWithMissingFields 372527 372527 357 350 33033
update.NestedUpdate 2119 2119 41 45 1040

Old Schema Generation: 28.985s
Schema Generation: 28.591s

@Liam-Doodson Liam-Doodson marked this pull request as ready for review February 22, 2023 11:56
Copy link
Contributor

@darrellwarde darrellwarde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I would make some changes as we discussed, but a few additional comments below! 🙂

Copy link
Contributor

@darrellwarde darrellwarde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks much more on the right track, even if there is some duplication of functionality in parts! Just a couple of observations, but I think it's pretty much good to go.

Copy link
Contributor

@darrellwarde darrellwarde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry again about the back and forth, but I hope you agree this is a slightly tidier solution. However, we should have conversation about validation in general, as it may be worthy of a revisit!

Copy link
Contributor

@darrellwarde darrellwarde left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks good - I think just this final change needs applying!

@Liam-Doodson Liam-Doodson merged commit 39bfe49 into neo4j:4.0.0 Feb 28, 2023
@Liam-Doodson Liam-Doodson deleted the change-customResolver-requires-to-a-selection-set branch February 28, 2023 13:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants