@skip or @include should only be used once per selection #223
Comments
leebyron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 28, 2016
This rule was suggested by @jjergus (#223) to remove ambiguity from execution where the `@skip` and `@ignore` directive rules make the assumption that only one is defined per selection. In general I think this assumption should be upheld by valid queries overall, not just for `@skip` and `@include` so that it can be relied upon for any usage of directives. For example, this allows a potential optimization to use a hashmap keyed on directive name to represent the directives at a location rather than an array. Closes #223
leebyron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 29, 2016
This rule was suggested by @jjergus (#223) to remove ambiguity from execution where the `@skip` and `@ignore` directive rules make the assumption that only one is defined per selection. In general I think this assumption should be upheld by valid queries overall, not just for `@skip` and `@include` so that it can be relied upon for any usage of directives. For example, this allows a potential optimization to use a hashmap keyed on directive name to represent the directives at a location rather than an array. Closes #223
leebyron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 29, 2016
This rule was suggested by @jjergus (#223) to remove ambiguity from execution where the `@skip` and `@ignore` directive rules make the assumption that only one is defined per selection. In general I think this assumption should be upheld by valid queries overall, not just for `@skip` and `@include` so that it can be relied upon for any usage of directives. For example, this allows a potential optimization to use a hashmap keyed on directive name to represent the directives at a location rather than an array. Closes #223
leebyron
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Oct 29, 2016
This rule was suggested by @jjergus (#223) to remove ambiguity from execution where the `@skip` and `@ignore` directive rules make the assumption that only one is defined per selection. In general I think this assumption should be upheld by valid queries overall, not just for `@skip` and `@include` so that it can be relied upon for any usage of directives. For example, this allows a potential optimization to use a hashmap keyed on directive name to represent the directives at a location rather than an array. Closes #223
IvanGoncharov
pushed a commit
to IvanGoncharov/graphql
that referenced
this issue
Jun 17, 2017
…l#229) This rule was suggested by @jjergus (graphql#223) to remove ambiguity from execution where the `@skip` and `@ignore` directive rules make the assumption that only one is defined per selection. In general I think this assumption should be upheld by valid queries overall, not just for `@skip` and `@include` so that it can be relied upon for any usage of directives. For example, this allows a potential optimization to use a hashmap keyed on directive name to represent the directives at a location rather than an array. Closes graphql#223
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
As mentioned in #221 (comment)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: