![]() See Appendix A for more details about the definition of algorithms and other notational conventions used in this document. Implementers are encouraged to include equivalent but optimized implementations. Algorithms described in this document are written to be easy to understand. “Let completedResult be the result of calling CompleteValue()”) is to be interpreted as having at least the same level of requirement as the algorithm containing that step.Ĭonformance requirements expressed as algorithms can be fulfilled by an implementation of this specification in any way as long as the perceived result is equivalent. Any algorithm referenced within an algorithm step (e.g. “Return the result of calling resolver”) are to be interpreted with the same level of requirement as the algorithm it is contained within. Conforming AlgorithmsĪlgorithm steps phrased in imperative grammar (e.g. These key words may appear in lowercase and still retain their meaning unless explicitly declared as non-normative.Ī conforming implementation of GraphQL may provide additional functionality, but must not where explicitly disallowed or would otherwise result in non-conformance. The key words “MUST”, “MUST NOT”, “REQUIRED”, “SHALL”, “SHALL NOT”, “SHOULD”, “SHOULD NOT”, “RECOMMENDED”, “MAY”, and “OPTIONAL” in the normative portions of this document are to be interpreted as described in IETF RFC 2119. Conformance requirements are described in this document via both descriptive assertions and key words with clearly defined meanings. Open Web Foundation Agreement 1.0 Mode (Patent and Copyright)Ī conforming implementation of GraphQL must fulfill all normative requirements. Ĭurrently, the licenses governing GraphQL Specification Project deliverables are: Deliverable The current Working Group charter, which includes the IP policy governing all working group deliverables (including specifications, source code, and datasets) may be found at. The GraphQL Specification Project is made available by the Joint Development Foundation. IN NO EVENT WILL THE PARTIES BE LIABLE TO ANY OTHER PARTY FOR LOST PROFITS OR ANY FORM OF INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY CHARACTER FROM ANY CAUSES OF ACTION OF ANY KIND WITH RESPECT TO THIS DELIVERABLE OR ITS GOVERNING AGREEMENT, WHETHER BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), OR OTHERWISE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE OTHER MEMBER HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. The entire risk as to implementing or otherwise using the materials is assumed by the implementer and user. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED “AS IS.” The parties expressly disclaim any warranties (express, implied, or otherwise), including implied warranties of merchantability, non-infringement, fitness for a particular purpose, or title, related to the materials. Copyright noticeĬopyright © 2019-present, GraphQL contributors The latest working draft release can be found at. Previous editions of the GraphQL specification can be found at s that match their release tag. The GraphQL Specification Project has evolved and may continue to evolve in future editions of this specification. If your organization benefits from GraphQL, please consider becoming a member and helping us to sustain the activities that support the health of our neutral ecosystem. The GraphQL Foundation was formed in 2019 as a neutral focal point for organizations who support the GraphQL ecosystem, and the GraphQL Specification Project was established also in 2019 as the Joint Development Foundation Projects, LLC, GraphQL Series. ![]() ![]() This specification was licensed under OWFa 1.0 in 2017. The development of this open standard started in 2015. It shouldn't cause any issues, but I guess it might be useful to be aware of it.This is the specification for GraphQL, a query language and execution engine originally created at Facebook in 2012 for describing the capabilities and requirements of data models for client-server applications. I guess this might not really be considered a problem, but I think it's probably the original source of this bug in my original case.ĮDIT: Just check this in 1.15.0, the generated file when using near-operation-file does still contain imports that aren't used in the operation file, but are used in a different operation file with the same name in a different folder. I'll check if this is still the case, but it seems quite possible that there's something that builds up the imports by filename or something, and they all end up getting merged into one set of imports for all files with the same name? ) despite the imports only being relevant to one of the generated files - they just happened to share the same file name.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |