-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2k
Description
This issue is to track a set of goals for type safety in TypeScript. In experiments, I have confirmed that all of these should be possible. While the increased verboseness has some ergonomic cost, the resulting type safety is overwhelmingly worth it in my opinion.
Object Types
For every field of a GraphQLObjectType
, the resolver (including a "default resolver") must return a value compatible with the "source" of the field's GraphQL "type". For example, if ChildType
expects { foo: string }
, then the result of ParentType
's child
field cannot be { foo: 123 }
or "foo"
.
Arguments & Input Types
The configuration of all defined arguments and input types must be checked against the types used in a resolver. For example, a resolver expecting args.foo
to be a non-null string cannot be used in a field that defines argument foo
as optional.
Scalars
The memory type of both custom and built-in scalars must be tracked. For example, a field with an argument configuration describing foo
as a GraphQLString
cannot have a resolver that expects foo
to be a boolean.
Using generics and conditional types, I have been able to demonstrate that each of these is possible. However, as these effect the type signature of all primitive GraphQL components, there are a substantial number of changes across the repo. At one point I had opened a PR to DefinitelyTyped that gave partial support for strict typing of arguments, but the change was breaking (from the perspective of types) and I was too busy to effectively convey the significance before the PR was auto-closed.
As this is a natural time to implement this kind of change (during an existing push to re-type the whole codebase), I'm going to open a PR that converts the entire repo to TS in a way that accomplishes these goals. I'll begin my changes as soon as #2139 gets merged and there's a feature lock for 15.
Activity
mike-marcacci commentedon Sep 20, 2019
As a tiny demonstration of one piece of this, consider this partial TS reimplementation of the graphql-js codebase:
Using this, it's perfectly legal to create the following
Person
type:However, if we change the
age
resolver to return a string, our TypeScript will report an error, and prevent us from ever shipping bad code!xialvjun commentedon Oct 24, 2019
Make
interface DocumentNode
generic, likeDocumentNode<Result, Variable>
, so many community tools can use it.For example:
@apollo/hooks
can justuseQuery(gqls.xxx_document)
instead ofuseQuery<Result, Variable>(gqls.xxx_document)
, and the type ofgqls.xxx_document
can be declared bygraphql-code-generator
koistya commentedon Jan 17, 2020
How would you reference a type in its own initializer?
Janpot commentedon Jan 17, 2020
By giving it a type annotation?
MatthiasKunnen commentedon Jan 17, 2020
Does
type: () => BooType
work?mike-marcacci commentedon Jan 17, 2020
Great question! @Janpot is correct - in most cases the type parameters can be inferred from the configs, providing type safety without explicitly declaring types. However, it's certainly possible to be explicit with these parameters (which is necessary in certain cases like this). TypeScript will treat any explicit parameters as canon, and will use them to validate matching
fields
configs.GraphQLObjectType
#2481dotansimha commentedon Aug 16, 2020
I recently opened a PR for using type inference in
DocumentNode
to allow clients to automatically infer types from generics: #2728I think if we'll go with this one, we can always try to use the inference/generics for similar improvements.
1 remaining item
pspeter3 commentedon Mar 4, 2021
Is this the right issue to follow for TypeScript type safety? I'm surprised by the usage of
any
in the resolver functions.dotansimha commentedon Mar 8, 2021
I think it's definitely the right place for that :)
So at the moment, the
any
is used broadly, and generics are not really part of the type's implementation. I'm not sure that it worth the effort to fix that on the existing code since it's based on.d.ts
enriching the Flow types, and not real TS.There is active work to migrate the codebase itself to be TypeScript, and from my point of view, this could be the first step for better TS.
The second step could be an improvement of type-safety at the schema level, so if you are using the class-based form of creating a schema, you'll be able to get improved type-safety. TBH, I'm still not sure on what level we can get here, but we can definitely use more
unknown
and more generics, and allow some level of inference for scalars.pspeter3 commentedon Mar 8, 2021
I think just being able to provide the arguments as generics as opposed to any would be a win. I also think having a TypeScript first approach would help.
mike-marcacci commentedon Mar 10, 2021
Definitely 😄
This is my take too. I began implementing the strong types I proposed above in a refactor to TS... but the number of changes were truly overwhelming, and impossible for any reviewer to track. Instead, I decided to wait on this heroic undertaking to land. The goal there was to migrate the codebase while minimally changing its public TS interface. Once this is complete and merged, I plan on conducting a substantial overhaul of these types to enable the kind of functionality I described above.
zachasme commentedon Mar 29, 2021
For inspiration there exists https://github.com/sikanhe/gqtx which is a thin layer over
graphql-js
which provides type-safety.Also @ephemer appears to have a similar wrapping in the works here: #2104 (comment)
jdpst commentedon Nov 6, 2021
@mike-marcacci That sounds terrific, I'd be very excited to see those changes. Now that v16 has dropped, do you have any sort of time frame in mind?
As @zachasme mentions, gqtx has done an awesome job in providing this (and even includes the relay-compliant helper functions). If we could have type-safe resolvers in this package, as in
gqtx
, I think many of us would give up the SDL/code-generator workaround.Edit: I should add that I'd be happy to help with such an undertaking if help is required.
mike-marcacci commentedon Jan 11, 2022
Hi @jdpst - Sorry for the communication delay here. It ended up taking much longer than expected for v16 to land, and I missed much of my available window to crank this out. However, this remains a bit of a pet project for myself... and these days I don't get much time to work on complex software changes, so it retains quite a personal appeal to me.
So I am still planning to do this "in my free time™" but would completely welcome somebody else doing it first. 😉
eezing commentedon Feb 17, 2022
This may need a separate issue, but wanted to bring it up here first.
Was messing around with type inference and stumbled on this:

Looks like
GraphQLNonNull
andGraphQLList
need a discriminator?yaacovCR commentedon May 19, 2022
@mike-marcacci I know your time is limited, but is the comment by @eezing above a blocker for your general work.
In general, I have a vague goal of introducing discriminators (well-known symbols) for all the types and using memoized predicates rather than
instanceof
to check the types at runtime. That would solve @eezing concern but will probably be a long time coming, if ever. I am curious, however, if the issue of wrapping types currently lacking a discriminators blocks #2188 and so the above changes (or a limited subset of them) would have to go first.chrisstaudt commentedon Jun 14, 2023
I just ran into this issue, there definitely needs to be some discriminator, I just added a prop with a string literal to both.
josiah-roberts commentedon Jan 5, 2024
This has plagued me across multiple codebases. Now one of the first things I do in a new repo is
This is really unfortunate. If the team would be open to PRs, I will simply make a PR that fixes this on the type level.
GraphQLNonNull
should not be assignable toGraphQLList
.mike-marcacci commentedon Aug 12, 2024
Just as an update, I finally found some time to start implementing this in April, and I've got all my initial changes in this commit.
There were zero run-time changes required, but types underwent a major refactor in ways that cannot be backwards-compatible. I think this is fine, and the benefits are so massive that the change cost for consumers is (IMO) completely justified.
However, I did run into a big blocker:
I need additional support from TypeScript to allow the
TArgs
parameter ofGraphQLFieldConfig
to be inferred when definingGraphQLFieldConfigMap
.It's still possible to use this by fully defining the type of each
GraphQLFieldConfig
in the map, but this is not ergonomic and theany
defeats argument type safety for any value not explicitly defined.With these defects, I'm skeptical that I could build sufficient momentum in the community to actually make this part of a release.
If TypeScript adds support for this, I'll finish the changes and champion the rollout. The last time I looked, the most promising proposal was:
If anyone watching this is an active participant in TypeScript's evolution, let me know how I can better push for this functionality.
EDIT: after trying to update the above stagnated TypeScript PR, I discovered that is isn't quite sufficient for this use-case. I've started working on a concrete proposal and familiarizing myself with the TypeScript compiler, with the hope of supporting the
infer
keyword in place of generic values. This turns out to be a pretty substantial change, though, so it might be more practical to come up with a "special case" solution. Either way, the following is a simplification of our use-case that preserves the intent: