Add env option to required-fields rule config

[jtschulz]

@jnwng 👀 please
Allows .graphql and .gql literal files to be linted with the required-fields rule. Resolves #74

Note: Neglected to update the README when I removed a few broken rules from the literal env and just threw the update in here, since I was already at it.

TODO:

• Make sure all of the significant new logic is covered by tests
• Rebase your changes on master so that they can be merged easily
• Make sure all tests pass
• Update CHANGELOG.md with your change
• If this was a change that affects the external API, update the README

[troch]

I'm also interested by this change. I've tried @PepperTeasdale change, and it works as expected.

[jnwng]

wow, apologies for taking so long to get this. this looks good — i was wondering if you could expand a little on the case around supporting graphql/required-fields using the literal env, do you mind adding a test case that verifies that that works as expected? it'd be nice to add that to make sure we don't regress over this particular issue

[jtschulz]

No problem @jnwng . My use case is that our clients are writing queries in .graphql files and we want to make sure they always include the required id fields on our types when defined. I can make a separate test case, for sure. I don't really see where in the test suite we are testing .graphql files, so I could use a little guidance on that. I updated the existing test for this rule to supply the apollo env, but could easily make a separate test case which does not supply the env option, which would validate that we are not breaking the current behavior. Please advise on what you would like.

[jtschulz]

@jnwng 💇‍♂️ I went ahead and added a test case to verify that my change didn't cause a regression. It still doesn't add any tests that the literal .graphql files are covered (again, just unsure what is desired, maybe some kind of integration test?).

[jnwng]

@PepperTeasdale i didn't have an answer to your question about how to deal with testing the processing of .graphql files (as they fairly obviously work with this library already). i wanted to have a better answer to give you and attempted to take a stab at it, but its still not 100% there (you can see my code here: 198f160) the crux of the matter is that we cannot use the normal RuleTester and need to pass in some configuration to allow us to use ESLint processors in our tests.

i'd like to give this one more day for me (or yourself, if you can get these tests running) before merging — if the code that i wrote can parse and validate rules properly, i'd like to have them both go in at the same time. if its not straightforward, i'll merge this and open an issue to make sure we provide some guidance on making sure we're not regressing in our literal env.

does that sound reasonable?

[jnwng]

nevermind i got the tests running. PTAL @PepperTeasdale!

[jtschulz]

🔥 I was looking for something just like this, but didn't know this existed.

[jtschulz]

@jnwng That's awesome! If you think it's worth it, I can start another branch and take a crack at backfilling some other tests in the literal env (I believe people consider this the best practice for writing queries, so would be nice to add more coverage, IMO). LGTM!

[jnwng]

@PepperTeasdale that would be awesome! thanks so much for working with me on this, and apologies again for taking so long to turn everything around. will merge and release once CI passes

[stubailo]

Awesome!