fix: Protect against missing typename fields on base types #368
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
🦋 Changeset detectedLatest commit: 40b735f 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 |
kitten
changed the title
JoviDeCroock
approved these changes
Aug 18, 2024
Merged
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to #102
Resolves #365
Summary
The differentiation when going from a narrow to a wide type can still cause confusion when the
__typenamefield isn't included on the concrete/base type i.e. on the fragment that includes the abstract interface type.This PR adds another optional
__typenamefield to add disambiguation and avoid any confusion caused by this.Set of changes
__typename?: PossibleTypefield