Skip to content

feat(Directive) update to new spec for Directive locations #121

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Mar 28, 2016

Conversation

rmosolgo
Copy link
Owner

A little bit ago, the Directive spec changed: graphql/graphql-spec#152

So, update!

@rmosolgo rmosolgo force-pushed the update-directive-introspection branch 2 times, most recently from 68d70a7 to bede327 Compare March 24, 2016 16:35
@rmosolgo rmosolgo force-pushed the update-directive-introspection branch from bede327 to edb0a91 Compare March 24, 2016 17:05
@rmosolgo rmosolgo merged commit 17b8f81 into master Mar 28, 2016
@rmosolgo rmosolgo deleted the update-directive-introspection branch March 28, 2016 14:04
@@ -4,7 +4,5 @@
field :name, !types.String, "The name of this directive"
field :description, types.String, "The description for this type"
field :args, field: GraphQL::Introspection::ArgumentsField
field :onOperation, !types.Boolean, "Does this directive apply to operations?", property: :on_operation?
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why did you remove this and not deprecate it like GraphQL JS? This breaks ecosystem tools like GraphiQL that have not yet updated.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

\cc @maxcodes

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Oops, error on my part! They can be re-implemented & marked as deprecated, sorry!

Copy link
Owner Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Replacing them in #164

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.

2 participants