This page is not created by, affiliated with, or supported by Slack Technologies, Inc.
2019-04-10
Channels
- # announcements (4)
- # beginners (116)
- # boot (4)
- # calva (63)
- # cider (8)
- # clara (20)
- # cljdoc (10)
- # cljsrn (69)
- # clojure (115)
- # clojure-austin (1)
- # clojure-dev (4)
- # clojure-finland (1)
- # clojure-italy (3)
- # clojure-nl (6)
- # clojure-russia (10)
- # clojure-uk (84)
- # clojurescript (28)
- # cursive (14)
- # data-science (1)
- # datascript (1)
- # datomic (11)
- # duct (3)
- # emacs (13)
- # figwheel-main (11)
- # fulcro (4)
- # graphql (6)
- # jackdaw (2)
- # jobs (23)
- # jobs-rus (1)
- # kaocha (11)
- # lein-figwheel (13)
- # leiningen (55)
- # luminus (14)
- # lumo (22)
- # off-topic (121)
- # pathom (19)
- # re-frame (6)
- # reagent (3)
- # reitit (22)
- # remote-jobs (10)
- # ring-swagger (1)
- # shadow-cljs (67)
- # slack-help (5)
- # spacemacs (1)
- # sql (18)
- # vim (28)
- # yada (2)
I have definitely gone down the higher-level abstraction route and am moderately pleased with the results thus far.
My question of the day today is: has anyone used a pattern they liked for providing an answer to the question: could this user perform this mutation? E.g. for driving the decision in a UI to even render the form or widget to take an action?
That’s kind of where I think I’m going; a :could
query that takes as arguments the name of and the input to a mutation
Say, I'm trying to rapidly mock up some data in lacinia for a deeply-nested structure. Is there a way to get it to ignore my previously-declared resolvers for a certain subset or the tree? Like I just want to return a literal map {:foo {:bar "baz"}}
but have lacinia ignore my previously-declared resolver for the :bar
field
If it were me, I reckon I’d just attach new resolvers, recompile, and query the new database.