Skip to content
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

Missing AC3 documentation improvements ☔ #6711

Closed
14 of 18 tasks
hwillson opened this issue Jul 27, 2020 · 15 comments
Closed
14 of 18 tasks

Missing AC3 documentation improvements ☔ #6711

hwillson opened this issue Jul 27, 2020 · 15 comments
Assignees

Comments

@hwillson
Copy link
Member

hwillson commented Jul 27, 2020

This issue tracks the docs items that weren't completed in #6429.

TODO:

@hwillson hwillson added this to the Post 3.0 milestone Jul 27, 2020
@hwillson hwillson self-assigned this Jul 27, 2020
@benjamn benjamn self-assigned this Jul 27, 2020
@JimboFromLimbo
Copy link

Would be good to get some more clarification around testing especially around client directives and reactive variables.

@abdonrd
Copy link
Contributor

abdonrd commented Aug 3, 2020

Meanwhile where we can find information about pagination? Thanks!

@hwillson
Copy link
Member Author

hwillson commented Aug 3, 2020

@abdonrd We're working on overhauling the main pagination section of the docs, but in the meantime you can find some details here: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/react/caching/cache-field-behavior/#handling-pagination

@tsnieman
Copy link

tsnieman commented Aug 6, 2020

Regardless of whether #6619 is a bug or intended behavior, this comment indicates a section of the documentation that could use some love to clarify intention WRT merging variables on mutate calls. Similarly, information about the change (if intentional) should also be conveyed in migration guides, changelogs, etc.

@JesseZomer
Copy link

JesseZomer commented Aug 11, 2020

I'm looking for documentation for local-only mutations. I see there's still a checkbox missing with the mutation example, but if someone could explain to me what I'm doing wrong, that would be great.

Our application makes use of the old local resolvers. Now I want to 'update' them to typePolicies. My old resolver looked like:

resolvers: {
         ....
        Mutation: {
           createCategorie(...)
        }
}

Now I changed it to this typePolicy:

const inMemoryCache = new InMemoryCache({
    typePolicies: {
        Query: {
            fields: {
                ....
            },
        },
        Mutation: {
            fields: {
                createCategorie(...) {
                    console.log('in create');
                }
            }
        },
       ...

the mutation gets called like this:

gql`
 mutation createCategorie(...) {
 createCategorie(...) @client
}`,

However the console.log never gets called. Is there something I'm missing?

edit: found my answer here: https://spectrum.chat/apollo/apollo-client/ac3-client-mutation~a0f064bf-731b-4129-8016-601217d45971

@tsnieman
Copy link

I think this issue about undefined old data when loading new data could use some love in the documentation / migration guides too.

@dmitry
Copy link

dmitry commented Oct 12, 2020

@JesseZomer I've stuck with the same problem. Probably you can help me with migration from local resolver mutation -> reactive variable?
Another problem related to this issue: #6247 and comment #6711 (comment)

@JesseZomer
Copy link

@dmitry I didn't migrate from local mutation resolvers to reactive variables, but I threw away the local mutations and just did direct cache updates with read/writeQuery.

@lorensr
Copy link
Contributor

lorensr commented Oct 31, 2020

@apollo/client/core, @apollo/client/utilities, @apollo/client/testing, @apollo/client/cache, etc. entry points

Also link entry points. These imports are out of date: https://www.apollographql.com/docs/link/

@gbiryukov
Copy link

Example with apollo cache reset to initial state also needs to be updated because it uses deprecated apollo-link-state to write defaults

@hwillson hwillson removed this from the Post 3.0 milestone May 31, 2021
@hwillson hwillson removed their assignment Sep 27, 2021
@jpvajda jpvajda changed the title Outstanding AC3 documentation Missing AC3 documentation improvements Jun 13, 2022
@jpvajda jpvajda pinned this issue Jun 13, 2022
@jpvajda
Copy link
Contributor

jpvajda commented Jun 13, 2022

If anyone is interested in helping update our documentation for these different features or improvements please feel free to submit a PR. Thank you!

@jpvajda jpvajda assigned jpvajda and unassigned benjamn Jun 13, 2022
@jpvajda jpvajda changed the title Missing AC3 documentation improvements Missing AC3 documentation improvements ☔ Jun 23, 2022
@jpvajda
Copy link
Contributor

jpvajda commented Jun 27, 2022

Our next steps with this issue will be to:

  1. Validate if these changes still need to be made, or if we've subsequently made changes later on that nullified these older changes.
  2. Confirm which docs updates are still required.
  3. Work with the docs team on the improvements that need to be made.

The best way to validate these changes are still accurate and haven't been modified by a later PR would be to search our changelog by a common term, to see if we have since pushed any code that would have nullified these original changes.

Alternatively you could look at the individual file changed and review the commit history.

For example: #7065 was a change to support inheritance of type and field policies, according to possibleTypes. so by searching the change log with possibleTypes you can validate this was the most recent change in #7065 , and that is OK to document. The file history also shows the recent commit

@jpvajda
Copy link
Contributor

jpvajda commented Sep 27, 2022

We decided we'll break this issue up in a few weeks where we can have low effort, medium effort and larger effort docs changes in separate issues instead of one larger issue.

@jpvajda jpvajda removed their assignment Oct 11, 2022
@jpvajda
Copy link
Contributor

jpvajda commented Oct 11, 2022

I'll work on breaking this out into separate tickets.

@jpvajda jpvajda closed this as completed Oct 12, 2022
@github-actions github-actions bot locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Feb 15, 2023
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

10 participants