Fix for relationship mutations are not using the correct direction #107
Conversation
…esolves neo4j-graphql#98) This bugfix solves the problem that the mapping was wrong for incoming relations
| ?.getDirective(DirectiveConstants.RELATION)?.let { it to false } | ||
| ?.getDirective(DirectiveConstants.RELATION)?.let { | ||
| // do inverse mapping, if the current type is the `to` mapping of the relation | ||
| it to (fieldObjectType.getFieldDefinition(it.getArgument(RELATION_TO, null))?.name == typeName) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we need to be careful, this doesn't always work. if you have a rich relationship which has the same type in to/from then we need to use the explicit information from that type.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we need the information the rel-field then I mean that indicates the correct direction otherwise it's "random" if from/to is matching the type name.
| @@ -49,9 +49,13 @@ fun GraphQLFieldsContainer.relationshipFor(name: String): RelationshipInfo? { | |||
| ?: throw IllegalArgumentException("$name is not defined on ${this.name}") | |||
| val fieldObjectType = field.type.inner() as? GraphQLFieldsContainer ?: return null | |||
|
|
|||
| val (relDirective, isRelFromType) = if (isRelationType()) { | |||
| val (relDirective, inverse) = if (isRelationType()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
perhaps we can simplify this code a bit so it gets easier to understand.
|
|
||
| val inverse = isRelFromType && fieldObjectType.getFieldDefinition(relInfo.startField)?.name != this.name |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
where is this bit handled now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
this was the fix for issue #45
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I moved it to https://github.com/Andy2003/neo4j-graphql-java/blob/bugfix/%2398-fix-relationship-mapping/src/main/kotlin/org/neo4j/graphql/GraphQLExtensions.kt#L57 since it is only relevant for rich relations
| @@ -0,0 +1,323 @@ | |||
| :toc: | |||
|
|
|||
| = Movie Test TCK | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this be Relationship Test TCK rather than Movie Test TCK?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for spotting this, fixed in master.
This bugfix solves the problem that the mapping was wrong for incoming relations
(resolves #98)