You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Throughout the GraphQL schema, fields populated by an Address have been
given the type Account, which enabled nested queries on that address. Take,
for example, a lookup table account.
You can see fields like ownerProgram and authority are queryable as Account types, allowing full account queries to be performed on these nested
fields.
It would be nice to allow enable nested account querying for fields that have a
list of addresses, such as addresses in the lookup table above.
Details
Implementing this capability might seem trivial, but simply attaching a "multiple
accounts" resolver to the field is not enough.
In a situation where a page may need to reload one account in the list, the above
solution would require the entire list of accounts to be re-loaded, rather than just
the account in question. As a result, we'll need to go a bit further to make sure this
new feature isn't prohibitive.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Motivation
Throughout the GraphQL schema, fields populated by an
Address
have beengiven the type
Account
, which enabled nested queries on that address. Take,for example, a lookup table account.
You can see fields like
ownerProgram
andauthority
are queryable asAccount
types, allowing fullaccount
queries to be performed on these nestedfields.
It would be nice to allow enable nested account querying for fields that have a
list of addresses, such as
addresses
in the lookup table above.Details
Implementing this capability might seem trivial, but simply attaching a "multiple
accounts" resolver to the field is not enough.
In a situation where a page may need to reload one account in the list, the above
solution would require the entire list of accounts to be re-loaded, rather than just
the account in question. As a result, we'll need to go a bit further to make sure this
new feature isn't prohibitive.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: