[typescript-resolvers] avoid input optional as typescript-operations

[LucienLee]

Now, we have dedicated controls of optional types in typescript-operations, including field, inputValue and Object. However, we only can choose on or off in typescript-resolvers.

I suggest that typescript-resolvers can take avoidOptionals as typescript-operations.

[dotansimha]

I think it will have to use a different controls, right? What did you have in mind? @LucienLee

[LucienLee]

I think that it could be the same because we can pass options in the output level (usually, resolvers and operations will be generated in the different files) and plugin level. It' doesn't matter we used the same config signatures.

However, maybe we can have a new one setting, scalar. Now we can control these GQL schema types optional or not: FieldDefinition, InputValueDefinition and ObjectTypeDefinition, but missed ScalarsDefinition.

BTW, I think the documentation of avoidOptionals is not quite completed now. People cannot know what is the setting meaning.

[LucienLee]

@dotansimha any thoughts?

[dotansimha]

@LucienLee I think you are right. PRs are welcome ;)

[stephenh]

Fwiw if you're messing with avoidOptionals in typescript-resolvers, you should have a mode that differentiates by mapped types:

• Resolvers.authors for a mapped Author output type should be required, and every field resolver in AuthorResolvers should be required
• Resolvers.saveAuthorResult for a non-mapped / DTO `SaveAuthorResult should be optional
• The non-mapped/DTO-object SaveAuthorResult should have all of its keys non-optional

I.e. if I'm not mapping a type, I don't need a resolver for it, b/c I'll just instantiate it fully each time I want to return it. And when I instantiate it, I should have to specify all of the fields.

If I am mapping a type, then I need a resolver for it, and every field in that resolver should be required (imo/at least as a potential config option).

We ended up implementing our own version of typescript-resolvers to get this more nuanced output.

[dotansimha]

@stephenh maybe this is something you can share with us? This use case sounds interesting, maybe it could help others as well :)

[stephenh]

@dotansimha sure :-) here's our plugin's repo: https://github.com/homebound-team/graphql-typescript-simple-resolvers (also edited my original suggestion for clarity)