Скачать или смотреть Streamlining GraphQL Input Types: How to Reuse Fields Effectively

Discover innovative solutions for efficient GraphQL schema design by reusing input types without redundancy, ensuring a seamless user experience when creating and updating data.
---
This video is based on the question https://stackoverflow.com/q/64566140/ asked by the user 'John Curry' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/5319012/ ) and on the answer https://stackoverflow.com/a/64566505/ provided by the user 'xadm' ( https://stackoverflow.com/u/6124657/ ) at 'Stack Overflow' website. Thanks to these great users and Stackexchange community for their contributions.

Visit these links for original content and any more details, such as alternate solutions, latest updates/developments on topic, comments, revision history etc. For example, the original title of the Question was: How do I re-use this input type when the create mutation has required fields but updates don't?

Also, Content (except music) licensed under CC BY-SA https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/l...
The original Question post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license, and the original Answer post is licensed under the 'CC BY-SA 4.0' ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/... ) license.

If anything seems off to you, please feel free to write me at vlogize [AT] gmail [DOT] com.
---
Streamlining GraphQL Input Types: How to Reuse Fields Effectively

In the world of GraphQL, developers often encounter a common dilemma: the challenge of managing input types, especially when a mutation for creating data has required fields while its counterpart for updating that data does not. This situation can lead to redundant code and confusion regarding the proper reuse of input types. In this post, we'll explore this issue in detail, discuss the underlying problems, and offer solutions to facilitate better reusability without loss of functionality.

The Problem: Redundancy in Input Types

When defining your GraphQL schema, you might find yourself declaring separate input types for creating and updating entities, as shown in the following example schema for a user:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

This design raises specific questions about how to handle required fields across the two mutations. The createUser mutation requires all fields to be filled, but the updateUser mutation allows for optional fields since users may not want to update every aspect of their profile.

Why is This a Problem?

Redundancy: The two input types (NewUserInput and UserInput) contain similar fields, creating unnecessary repetition in your codebase.

Validation: GraphQL’s built-in validation won't allow you to bypass required fields in the creation process, leading to limitations in handling updates.

Exploring Possible Solutions

1. Removing Required Fields in Input Types

One approach might be to eliminate all required fields in the input types, allowing for flexibility in updates. However, this has implications for input validation:

Manual Validation: You will need to handle validation within your resolvers. This means that for every mutation, you would need to check if certain fields were provided and ensure they meet the required conditions. For example:

[[See Video to Reveal this Text or Code Snippet]]

While this way solves the problem of redundancy, it can lead to more complex, error-prone code.

2. Separate Input Types for Create and Update

Despite the appeal of consolidation, a more standardized approach is to maintain separate input types for creation and updating. This route mirrors practices in established libraries like WPGraphQL. They separate entity definitions to uphold clarity in design:

Unique Specifications: Each mutation can define its own required fields without conflict. For instance, the updateUser input could include an id field, while the createUser input assures all necessary fields are filled.

Extensibility: This method allows adjustments to be made independently in the future, as updates for user profiles may evolve over time.

Conclusion: Finding the Balance

Ultimately, the choice between reusing input types and maintaining separate definitions hinges on the specific requirements of your application. By weighing the pros and cons of each approach, you can forge a path that best suits your project’s architecture while keeping your codebase clean and understandable. The need for flexibility in update operations should not come at the expense of simplicity in creation operations.

In summary, while it may be tempting to consolidate input types into a single, versatile entity, maintaining distinct input types for create and update might be the most practical and maintainable long-term solution. By doing so, you ensure that each operation caters to its specific needs without added complexity.

Remember to always prioritize user experience and code maintainability in your GraphQL endeavors!