fix for mixture of default and custom root type names

[yaacovCR]

Is it legal to use “extend schema” if the schema definition is omitted and the default types could have been used?

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for compassionate-pike-271cb3 ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	d430324
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/compassionate-pike-271cb3/deploys/6744f931c82d3f0008eded47
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-4300--compassionate-pike-271cb3.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[github-actions]

Hi @yaacovCR, I'm @github-actions bot happy to help you with this PR 👋

Supported commands

Please post this commands in separate comments and only one per comment:

• @github-actions run-benchmark - Run benchmark comparing base and merge commits for this PR
• @github-actions publish-pr-on-npm - Build package from this PR and publish it on NPM

[JoviDeCroock]

I am not sure I understand the question about the legality of this operation? If your question is whether it's fine to leverage extend Schema without there being an explicit Schema definition I think that's legal yes, as the Schema definition in both SDL as well as Code first is often implicit so I'd see this as a safe way of overriding the Query default type.

All though this does beg the question where the implicit schema type is Schema { query: Query } and we change it to Schema { query: MyQuery } over a type-extension. That's potentially a footgun in fully removing all the related fields hat are defined in Query.

The spec does hint that it should be explicitly defined so in following the spec to the letter here I would personally not start supporting this due to the spec as well as the aforementioned footgun.

[yaacovCR]

That's a great catch on the spec requiring the schema to be defined! :) I think we can close this.