[gatsby-source-drupal] relationship handling improvments #5020

pieh · 2018-04-17T16:03:53Z

add support for relationships with many values (arrays)
fix back refs not showing for entities without any relationships
BREAKING CHANGE change backrefs to arrays as we can't ensure that backref will have single value

There is also one more breaking change I'd like to add here, but need to consult first:

Right now back references are added with names of referencing types - so if we would have hypothetical node type "Product" and 2 fields: "cross_sell" and "up_sell" than links to other products then both backrefs would all be dumped into single node__product field and we couldn't differentiate if current product is in cross-sell or up-sell relationship.

Proposed solution:
Use name of relationship as base for back reference field name - maybe something like back_${relationship_name} and maybe allow setting that name in plugin settings:

back_references: {
  `node__product.up_sell` : `is_up_sell_for`
}

gatsbybot · 2018-04-17T16:11:11Z

Deploy preview for gatsbygram ready!

Built with commit a6ab3f2

https://deploy-preview-5020--gatsbygram.netlify.com

gatsbybot · 2018-04-17T16:11:38Z

Deploy preview for using-drupal ready!

Built with commit a6ab3f2

https://deploy-preview-5020--using-drupal.netlify.com

KyleAMathews · 2018-04-17T19:09:48Z

Oh interesting — yeah, making the backref fields more explicit makes a lot of sense. What's the usecase for making those overridable in the plugin config?

pieh · 2018-04-18T11:45:31Z

What's the usecase for making those overridable in the plugin config?

Sorry, I've missed that yesterday.

So situation was that content node had field name belongs_to_category linking to taxonomy terms. When I changed back ref name from type name to back_field_belongs_to_category it looked like this

taxonomyTermCategories {
  relationships {
    back_field_belongs_to_category {
      # this is content node, but field name is a bit confusing
      # allowing to name it like "linked_content_node" would make schema more self documented
      # but we can't do that automatically because there would be issue described with 
      # "cross-sell" / "up-sell" scenario in PR description
      title
    }
}

I'm not convinced that proposed solution is best (or even good) - not sure what's the nicest way to handle this

m-allanson · 2018-04-25T15:24:07Z

I don't think I understand what this is doing 😅. Nudging @KyleAMathews for another look.

dubcanada · 2018-05-01T21:58:28Z

I like this as it stands, tested it in my environment and it works.

I am not sure about the second part, maybe make a todo for that so we can discuss? I am not sure I follow you, are you saying if both fields have the same machine name? Cause you can type different them, they would be added as multiple different types and you would just use

... on field_type {}

To get the specific one you want, so for paragraphs you can use

... on paragraph__machine_name{}

But maybe I don't follow what you are saying.

👍

eojthebrave · 2018-07-03T03:17:42Z

This PR is working well and solving some problems I was encountering.

FWIW. This merges cleanly with the V1 branch. Should it be re-rolled for Gatsby V2 (master branch)? And then back-ported for V1?

KyleAMathews · 2018-07-09T20:23:38Z

@pieh you want to revisit this and get it landed in v1/master?

pieh · 2018-07-10T15:44:22Z

Yeah, I'll update this so it can be merged to master before I open any new PR - but will have to handle #6261 first

eojthebrave · 2018-07-10T15:48:41Z

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help, and/or test things.

… (arrays), fix back refs not showing for entities without any relationships, change backrefs to arrays as we can't ensure that backref will have single value Signed-off-by: Michal Piechowiak <misiek.piechowiak@gmail.com>

KyleAMathews · 2018-07-19T11:08:24Z

Deploy preview for using-postcss-sass failed.

Built with commit a6ab3f2

https://app.netlify.com/sites/using-postcss-sass/deploys/5b5086953813f00e269da002

mglaman · 2018-07-19T12:24:06Z

Just gave this a test run using some Drupal Commerce data, and got the following error:

  TypeError: Cannot read property 'internal' of null
  
  - infer-graphql-input-fields.js:327 _.each
    [gatsby]/[gatsby]/dist/schema/infer-graphql-input-fields.js:327:38

Which is at:

      // TODO: Union the objects in array
      const nodeToFind = _.isArray(value) ? value[0] : value;
      const linkedNode = findLinkedNode(nodeToFind); // Get from cache if found, else store into it
      if (linkedNodeCache[linkedNode.internal.type]) {

I did some basic debugging and findLinkedNode(nodeToFind); isn't finding the node from the passed UUID value.

I'm going to try and debug it some more and figure out which relationship is erroring.

pieh · 2018-07-19T12:25:41Z

Hey, I'm working on it right now - I might have fix for it already locally. Let me push out my work here

pieh · 2018-07-19T12:32:43Z

@mglaman can You pull and check again?

mglaman · 2018-07-19T13:00:32Z

Rad! I'll test after my commute and report back

mglaman · 2018-07-19T13:22:50Z

Amazing! It fixes the error, and now the query is returning all of my variations!

💯 💯 💯 💯 💯

mglaman · 2018-07-19T13:27:07Z

I'm still seeing one issue, but I honestly think it could be done in a follow up, so that multiple valued references can at least be fixed first.

We have three taxonomy references on an entity. But only the first one is being provided as a relationship. When I fetch the product over JSON API I see the relationships available:

        "field_brand": {
          "data": {
            "type": "taxonomy_term--brands",
            "id": "316b2893-6876-49e0-9ce6-68d8751bc8b9"
          },
          "links": {
            "self": "http:\/\/commerce2x.ddev.local\/jsonapi\/commerce_product\/clothing\/802dfe56-8536-4287-a0fa-6bed3fd3a621\/relationships\/field_brand",
            "related": "http:\/\/commerce2x.ddev.local\/jsonapi\/commerce_product\/clothing\/802dfe56-8536-4287-a0fa-6bed3fd3a621\/field_brand"
          }
        },
        "field_product_categories": {
          "data": [
            {
              "type": "taxonomy_term--product_categories",
              "id": "d52448c0-22c5-4a62-995c-e09c881a3f67"
            }
          ],
          "links": {
            "self": "http:\/\/commerce2x.ddev.local\/jsonapi\/commerce_product\/clothing\/802dfe56-8536-4287-a0fa-6bed3fd3a621\/relationships\/field_product_categories",
            "related": "http:\/\/commerce2x.ddev.local\/jsonapi\/commerce_product\/clothing\/802dfe56-8536-4287-a0fa-6bed3fd3a621\/field_product_categories"
          }
        },
        "field_special_categories": {
          "data": [],
          "links": {
            "self": "http:\/\/commerce2x.ddev.local\/jsonapi\/commerce_product\/clothing\/802dfe56-8536-4287-a0fa-6bed3fd3a621\/relationships\/field_special_categories",
            "related": "http:\/\/commerce2x.ddev.local\/jsonapi\/commerce_product\/clothing\/802dfe56-8536-4287-a0fa-6bed3fd3a621\/field_special_categories"
          }
        },

As I said, in my opinion the bigger blocker is not being able to receive all relationship values.

pieh · 2018-07-19T13:51:00Z

It fixes the error, and now the query is returning all of my variations!

That's great to hear! I was about to install docker to setup demo site that would actually test those changes (was doing test driven dev on this on today) :)

I'm still seeing one issue, but I honestly think it could be done in a follow up, so that multiple valued references can at least be fixed first.

Do You have your site hosted somewhere (I seeYou use local url) so I could debug this issue? If so please let me know - either here or via mail if You don't want to show this publicly (misiek.piechowiak@gmail.com)

mglaman · 2018-07-19T15:31:22Z

@pieh :) here is a site! http://dev-commerce2x-jsonapi.pantheonsite.io/jsonapi

Took a little to get set up (haven't used Pantheon in a long time)

Here is the Gatsby setup I am using https://github.com/mglaman/gatsbyjs_commerce_demo

pieh · 2018-07-19T17:03:27Z

I just checked that locally it all 3 taxonomies show up in relationships (at least for commerce_product/simple):

So I would suspect this is related to how we construct schema - we do that from actual data - so if none of Your products have assigned any Brand / Categories / Special categories, then it won't show up in schema. For testing purpose You can create dummy category and add it to dummy product to force those fields appear in schema.

Let me know if what I wrote make sense and is actually valid in Your case!

mglaman · 2018-07-19T18:18:56Z

Hm, weird. I think my local was just messed up. When I ran this query against that sandbox environment all was great!

query test {
  allCommerceProductClothing {
    edges {
      node {
        title
        id
        relationships {
          field_brand {
            id
          }
          field_product_categories {
            id
          }
          variations {
            id
            sku
            relationships {
              attribute_size {
                id
              }
              attribute_color {
                id
              }
              field_images {
                localFile {
                  id
                  relativePath
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }
    }
  }
}

mglaman · 2018-07-19T18:19:15Z

@pieh thanks so much for helping unblock this :)

pieh · 2018-07-19T19:40:55Z

This is ready for review

KyleAMathews

Gave a glance over and it looks reasonable :-) So take that for what its worth haha :-D

pieh · 2018-07-20T12:34:37Z

I'll just merge it (it being opened for 3 months really bugs me) and if it cause problems it will be additional motivation to fix those :)

luke-dare · 2018-07-22T00:41:00Z

Great work .. this is definitely something I'm going to need for a site I'm working on.

Is a release planned for the near future?

dubcanada previously approved these changes May 1, 2018

View reviewed changes

pieh mentioned this pull request Jun 28, 2018

Pull in nested entities when using Gatsby Drupal plugin #6172

Closed

eojthebrave added a commit to OsioLabs/gatsby-source-drupal that referenced this pull request Jul 3, 2018

Copy of code from gatsbyjs/gatsby#5020

f448d02

pieh dismissed dubcanada’s stale review via 3de31d7 July 19, 2018 11:05

pieh force-pushed the drupal-rel branch from 91b15cf to 3de31d7 Compare July 19, 2018 11:05

wip

70a9227

pieh added 2 commits July 19, 2018 14:38

finish tests

aaf0e54

remove fixture that's not used anymore

a6ab3f2

pieh self-assigned this Jul 19, 2018

KyleAMathews approved these changes Jul 19, 2018

View reviewed changes

pieh merged commit 51ff809 into gatsbyjs:master Jul 20, 2018

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

[gatsby-source-drupal] relationship handling improvments #5020

[gatsby-source-drupal] relationship handling improvments #5020

pieh commented Apr 17, 2018

gatsbybot commented Apr 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

gatsbybot commented Apr 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

KyleAMathews commented Apr 17, 2018

pieh commented Apr 18, 2018

m-allanson commented Apr 25, 2018

dubcanada commented May 1, 2018 •

edited

Loading

eojthebrave commented Jul 3, 2018

KyleAMathews commented Jul 9, 2018

pieh commented Jul 10, 2018

eojthebrave commented Jul 10, 2018

KyleAMathews commented Jul 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

KyleAMathews left a comment

pieh commented Jul 20, 2018

luke-dare commented Jul 22, 2018

[gatsby-source-drupal] relationship handling improvments #5020

[gatsby-source-drupal] relationship handling improvments #5020

Conversation

pieh commented Apr 17, 2018

gatsbybot commented Apr 17, 2018 • edited Loading

gatsbybot commented Apr 17, 2018 • edited Loading

KyleAMathews commented Apr 17, 2018

pieh commented Apr 18, 2018

m-allanson commented Apr 25, 2018

dubcanada commented May 1, 2018 • edited Loading

eojthebrave commented Jul 3, 2018

KyleAMathews commented Jul 9, 2018

pieh commented Jul 10, 2018

eojthebrave commented Jul 10, 2018

KyleAMathews commented Jul 19, 2018 • edited Loading

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

mglaman commented Jul 19, 2018

pieh commented Jul 19, 2018

KyleAMathews left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pieh commented Jul 20, 2018

luke-dare commented Jul 22, 2018

gatsbybot commented Apr 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

gatsbybot commented Apr 17, 2018 •

edited

Loading

dubcanada commented May 1, 2018 •

edited

Loading

KyleAMathews commented Jul 19, 2018 •

edited

Loading