feat: user-specified validation rule skips #340
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
This feature allows for the user to specify which validation rules they want to skip. Currently we only support 2 rules (the implicit no unused fragments rule and the UniqueFragmentNames rule).
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This feature allows for the user to specify which validation rules they want to skip. Currently we only support 2 rules (the implicit no unused fragments rule and the UniqueFragmentNames rule).
My use-case is - the https://github.com/graphql-rust/graphql-client/ that I am using for for my rust client generation doesn't support importing fragments; but I have standard fragments for pagination that I would otherwise share. I don't want to maintain 2 sets of queries for my python and rust clients. As long as these fragments are identical, it doesn't matter whether they are re-defined, so I am safe to turn off this validation rule.