RFC: Fragment Args defined as Variable Definition #2
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
mjmahone
force-pushed
the
rfc-fragment-args-vardef
branch
from
178b63a to
db956e2
Compare
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A continuation of graphql#865 but with fragment arguments defined via VariablesDefinition the same way Operations define variables.
TODO: need to update Execution section. I am finding some bugs from the original RFC, but overall it feels like this change is slightly more aligned with the existing spec than splitting the fragment definitions into a separate FragmentArgumentsDefinition kind.