ra-data-graphql: Update include/exclude introspection logic #5305
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
See #4933 for background info. But, right now all resources in the GQL data provider must implement both a GET_ONE and a GET_LIST for a resource to actually be considered a resource. This is very limiting because there is no workaround for a resource that only has a GET_ONE.
What this PR does is move the include/exclude logic to before the check that a resource has a GET_ONE and GET_LIST. If a resource is included or excluded, it will short circuit and either include or exclude the resource, regardless of the GET_ONE/GET_LIST check.
This solution is pretty solid in my opinion -- it is totally backward compatible, it allows users who want to include a resource that is a bit nonstandard to do so by explicitly setting a configuration object, and it feels more intuitive that a resource which is explicitly included in the configuration object is always included.