fix(appsync): enhance consistency for custom resolver field naming in AppSync

[leandrodamascena]

Issue number: #5560

Summary

Changes

This PR aims to bring consistency to scenarios where customers want to use a custom resolver in AppSync to place fields outside of the info object while maintaining consistency by using the same field name parentTypeName.

• Modified the logic to check for parentTypeName both inside and outside the info object
• Implemented a fallback to typeName if parentTypeName is not found

User experience

Please share what the user experience looks like before and after this change

Checklist

If your change doesn't seem to apply, please leave them unchecked.

• Meet tenets criteria
• I have performed a self-review of this change
• Changes have been tested
• Changes are documented
• PR title follows conventional commit semantics

Is this a breaking change?

RFC issue number:

Checklist:

• Migration process documented
• Implement warnings (if it can live side by side)

Acknowledgment

By submitting this pull request, I confirm that you can use, modify, copy, and redistribute this contribution, under the terms of your choice.

Disclaimer: We value your time and bandwidth. As such, any pull requests created on non-triaged issues might not be successful.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.17%. Comparing base (0cbd1c1) to head (36c1ee6).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #5801   +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage    96.17%   96.17%           
========================================
  Files          232      232           
  Lines        10940    10941    +1     
  Branches      2023     2023           
========================================
+ Hits         10521    10522    +1     
  Misses         329      329           
  Partials        90       90           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
0.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[anafalcao]

great job @leandrodamascena ! approved