Sort out union subtyping
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
bug
- Dominant language
- Scala
- Stars
- 189
- Forks
- 32
- Avg merge
- 18h 31m
- Merged PRs (30d)
- 37
Description
Currently the definition of the case(s) for unions in <:< don't implement a particularly sane subtype relation. Nonetheless the current semantics are relied on, eg. in fragmentApplies. Probably unions should only relate as subtypes to other unions and we should introduce a separate relation for fragment applicability.
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by tracing the union case definition for <: and the fragmentApplies entry point, then identify which current subtype semantics those uses rely on. The issue is complete when the intended union subtype relation and the separate fragment-applicability relation are agreed and consistently represented.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- graphql, scala
- Domain
- backend-api-design
- Issue type
- Refactor
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 30/100