Question: expected behavior for field arguments not defined in interface

[tonyghita]

I have a question about the following clause in the draft spec (under 3.1.2.3).

The object field may include additional arguments not defined in the interface field, but any additional argument must not be required.

http://facebook.github.io/graphql/draft/#sec-Object-type-validation

What is the expected behavior of additional arguments that have a default value? For example:

interface Namer {
  name: String!
}

type User implements Namer {
  id: ID!
  name(type: NameType = FULL): String!
  email: String!
}

enum NameType {
  FULL
  FIRST
  LAST
}

In this example, does User implement Namer?

[IvanGoncharov]

In this example, does User implement Namer?

@tonyghita Yes it does.

What is the expected behavior of additional arguments that have a default value?

The only change that would break this rules is if you define type as NameType!.
See this PR for the explanation why this rule was added: #110

[IvanGoncharov]

The object field may include additional arguments not defined in the interface field, but any additional argument must not be required.

Probably it makes sense to use nullable term and change it to argument should be of a nullable type.

@tonyghita What do you think?

[tonyghita]

@IvanGoncharov yes that clarifies the clause for me 💯%. Thank you for your response.