starred/gql-query-builder
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/atulmy/gql-query-builder.git synced 2026-04-25 23:55:55 +03:00
Code Issues 36 Projects Releases 5 Packages Wiki Activity

[GH-ISSUE #4] Single query, multiple operations #1

New issue
Closed
opened 2026-03-03 00:02:38 +03:00 by kerem · 11 comments
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:38 +03:00
Owner
Copy link

Originally created by @bebraw on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019).
Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/atulmy/gql-query-builder/issues/4

I have a case roughly like this:

query SpeakerTweetTemplateQuery($conferenceId: ID!, $contactName: String!) {
  contact(contactName: $contactName, conferenceId: $conferenceId) {
    name
  }
  conference(id: $conferenceId) {
    name
  }
}

The point is that I would like to execute multiple operations within a single query. As far as I can see, the current API isn't flexible enough for this purpose.

I can work around this by performing multiple separate requests. Any better ideas? Should I try to PR a generalization like this?

Originally created by @bebraw on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019). Original GitHub issue: https://github.com/atulmy/gql-query-builder/issues/4 I have a case roughly like this: ```graphql query SpeakerTweetTemplateQuery($conferenceId: ID!, $contactName: String!) { contact(contactName: $contactName, conferenceId: $conferenceId) { name } conference(id: $conferenceId) { name } } ``` The point is that I would like to execute multiple operations within a single query. As far as I can see, the current API isn't flexible enough for this purpose. I can work around this by performing multiple separate requests. Any better ideas? Should I try to PR a generalization like this?
kerem closed this issue 2026-03-03 00:02:38 +03:00
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019):

@bebraw yes, current implementation is quite basic. If we have this feature baked in, it'd definitely help.

There is this issue open to support params on nested fields which seems like dependency for this use case as well.

If you can send a PR, that would be awesome. Don't forget to add you name under Authors section of readme. Looking forward to it.

<!-- gh-comment-id:471607859 --> @atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019): @bebraw yes, current implementation is quite basic. If we have this feature baked in, it'd definitely help. There is [this issue](https://github.com/atulmy/gql-query-builder/issues/3) open to support params on nested fields which seems like dependency for this use case as well. If you can send a PR, that would be awesome. Don't forget to add you name under [Authors](https://github.com/atulmy/gql-query-builder#authors) section of readme. Looking forward to it.
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019):

@atulmy Ok, I'll give it a go. Given the feature might couples operation with a specific field, likely the API shape has to change. Would a major version be ok? I can likely support the old format while giving a deprecation warning.

<!-- gh-comment-id:471613702 --> @bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019): @atulmy Ok, I'll give it a go. Given the feature might couples operation with a specific field, likely the API shape has to change. Would a major version be ok? I can likely support the old format while giving a deprecation warning.
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019):

Would a major version be ok? I can likely support the old format while giving a deprecation warning.

Sure.

<!-- gh-comment-id:471626894 --> @atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 11, 2019): > Would a major version be ok? I can likely support the old format while giving a deprecation warning. Sure.
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019):

Here's are my first proposals for the API:

1.

import queryBuilder from 'gql-query-builder'

const query = queryBuilder([
  {
    type: 'query',
    operation: 'thoughts',
    fields: ['id', 'name', 'thought']
  },
  {
    type: 'query',
    operation: 'prayers',
    fields: ['id', 'name', 'prayer']
  }
])

console.log(query)

// Output
query {
  thoughts {
    id,
    name,
    thought
  }
  prayers {
    id,
    name,
    prayer
  }
}

2.

import queryBuilder from 'gql-query-builder'

const query = queryBuilder.query([{
    operation: 'thoughts',
    fields: ['id', 'name', 'thought']
  },
  {
    operation: 'prayers',
    fields: ['id', 'name', 'prayer']
  }
])

console.log(query)

// Output
query {
  thoughts {
    id,
    name,
    thought
  }
  prayers {
    id,
    name,
    prayer
  }
}

Does it make sense to generate a query that has both mutations and queries in it? If not, then I would go with 2. as then you get .query and .mutation and cannot end up with a conflicting state.

Let me know what you prefer and I'll implement the variant.

<!-- gh-comment-id:472064850 --> @bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019): Here's are my first proposals for the API: **1.** ```javascript import queryBuilder from 'gql-query-builder' const query = queryBuilder([ { type: 'query', operation: 'thoughts', fields: ['id', 'name', 'thought'] }, { type: 'query', operation: 'prayers', fields: ['id', 'name', 'prayer'] } ]) console.log(query) // Output query { thoughts { id, name, thought } prayers { id, name, prayer } } ``` **2.** ```javascript import queryBuilder from 'gql-query-builder' const query = queryBuilder.query([{ operation: 'thoughts', fields: ['id', 'name', 'thought'] }, { operation: 'prayers', fields: ['id', 'name', 'prayer'] } ]) console.log(query) // Output query { thoughts { id, name, thought } prayers { id, name, prayer } } ``` Does it make sense to generate a query that has both mutations and queries in it? If not, then I would go with 2. as then you get `.query` and `.mutation` and cannot end up with a conflicting state. Let me know what you prefer and I'll implement the variant.
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019):

@bebraw the second one looks more comprehensible.

We may also need to support:
Only object:

queryBuilder.query({ ... })

Array of objects:

queryBuilder.query([ { ... }, { ... } ])

And mutation as well:

queryBuilder.mutation()
<!-- gh-comment-id:472177149 --> @atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019): @bebraw the second one looks more comprehensible. We may also need to support: Only object: ``` queryBuilder.query({ ... }) ``` Array of objects: ``` queryBuilder.query([ { ... }, { ... } ]) ``` And mutation as well: ``` queryBuilder.mutation() ```
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019):

@atulmy Ok, sounds good. I'll do something basic around this. Would you mind if I ported the project to TypeScript while at it?

<!-- gh-comment-id:472178395 --> @bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019): @atulmy Ok, sounds good. I'll do something basic around this. Would you mind if I ported the project to TypeScript while at it?
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019):

port the project to TypeScript

Sure. Sounds exciting. Haven't worked with TypeScript yet, this sounds like a good opportunity.

<!-- gh-comment-id:472179871 --> @atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 12, 2019): > port the project to TypeScript Sure. Sounds exciting. Haven't worked with TypeScript yet, this sounds like a good opportunity.
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019):

@atulmy You can find my initial PR at #5. It doesn't include the work above, though.

<!-- gh-comment-id:472361873 --> @bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019): @atulmy You can find my initial PR at #5. It doesn't include the work above, though.
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019):

I think we should support following:

const { query, mutation } = require('gql-query-builder')

query()

mutation()

const queryBuilder = require('gql-query-builder')

queryBuilder.query()

queryBuilder.mutation()
<!-- gh-comment-id:472365611 --> @atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019): I think we should support following: ``` const { query, mutation } = require('gql-query-builder') query() mutation() ``` ``` const queryBuilder = require('gql-query-builder') queryBuilder.query() queryBuilder.mutation() ```
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019):

Ok, cool. I'll prepare a PR along those lines. It might go to tomorrow. Let's see.

<!-- gh-comment-id:472366765 --> @bebraw commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019): Ok, cool. I'll prepare a PR along those lines. It might go to tomorrow. Let's see.
kerem commented 2026-03-03 00:02:39 +03:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

@atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019):

Sure, we can schedule an npm release once updated API is in good shape.

<!-- gh-comment-id:472368050 --> @atulmy commented on GitHub (Mar 13, 2019): Sure, we can schedule an `npm` release once updated API is in good shape.
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag specified
Branches Tags
master
3.8.0
3.7.2
3.7.1
3.7.0
3.6.0
3.5.9
3.5.7
3.5.5
3.5.4
3.5.1
3.5.0
v3.4.1
v3.4.0
3.3.0
3.2.0
3.1.1
3.1.0
3.0.7
3.0.2
2.0.2
Labels
Clear labels   
bug

   
enhancement

   
enhancement

   
good first issue

   
help wanted

   
pull-request

Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request

  
question
No labels
bug
enhancement
enhancement
good first issue
help wanted
pull-request
question
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
starred/gql-query-builder#1
No description provided.