-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 272
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Reconcile dev
after merge to main
for v1.54.0
#5986
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Co-authored-by: Edward Huang <[email protected]>
… thrown from supergraph (#5934)
We may burn additional CI costs for this release job, but that's acceptable. Tests will still run and we'll be okay. Linting doesn't matter.
Co-authored-by: Edward Huang <[email protected]>
In a recent change that added logic in `add_at_path` to remove unnecessary directives from selections, the insertion logic into the selection set had a bug. If the set did not have the key of the `OpPathElement`, we would generate a selection from the element after removing unnecessary directives. However, this was using the `entry` API, which requires that the key of the `Selection` passed to `.or_insert` matches the original. Because we removed the unnecessary directives, these keys were prone to mismatching. Co-authored-by: Iryna Shestak <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Huang <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Edward Huang <[email protected]>
This protection against introspection queries generating huge responses was added recently in graphql-js graphql/graphql-js#4118 and ported to rust apollographql/apollo-rs#904, but is not yet present in the graphql-js version used by router-bridge. This disables it for now from Rust introspection, in order to match the current state of JS introspection. Adding this rule (in both implementations) can be revisited separately. In particular: the depth limit is hard-coded to 3. Is that the right number? Should it be configurable? Is the rule checking the right set of fields?
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coenen <[email protected]>
abernix
requested review from
a team,
dariuszkuc,
sachindshinde,
goto-bus-stop,
SimonSapin,
lrlna,
TylerBloom and
duckki
as code owners
September 10, 2024 18:31
CI performance tests
|
tninesling
approved these changes
Sep 10, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Follow-up to the v1.54.0 being officially released, bringing version bumps and changelog updates into the
dev
branch.