Considering bringing back decorators feature

[wtrocki]

In early version, GraphQL-tools had this concept of decorators
https://www.apollographql.com/blog/graphql-schema-decorators-3c01a445b628

Generally, there is a huge demand for GraphQL to support. For example:
graphql/graphql-spec#200

Why not directives. This blog post sums it up:
https://blog.logrocket.com/graphql-directives-are-underrated/

Generally, directives need to be defined in the schema and they are often misused.
Directives should be used to define application behavior at runtime but not metadata.

Solutions to resolve this problem were created already and it will be cool if there will be possibility to include them into graphql-tools.
For example:
https://github.com/aerogear/graphql-metadata

[yaacovCR]

I do not know the entire evolution, but decorator proposal seems to have morphed into the schema directive implementation. The old class based system is still supported, as is the new functional approach.

In general, upstream graphql-js suggests adding metadata to extensions properties.

[wtrocki]

Thank you so much for quick response.
Extensions are used for the client, server interaction. Metadata here is more like schema (server side) approach.

[ardatan]

I don't think extensions property is client specific, because GraphQLSchema has extensions in its every single node and you can use it to keep some data and take this data in from GraphQLResolveInfo inside resolvers.
And you cannot access extensions from client which makes it server-side thing I guess.

[wtrocki]

Ah.. I was more thinking about SDL only approach where you can add some info to schema SDL

[ardatan]

That syntax would be invalid for graphql-js so I am not sure if graphql-tools should have something out of specification.

[wtrocki]

All goes as description field so it is 100% valid with spec

[yaacovCR]

You could use the new functional schemaTransform approach to convert between your comment syntax and directive syntax, advantage to using directives is that with appropriate use of typeDefs, everything is typed so can be validated easily.

[wtrocki]

@yaacovCR actually this sound like amazing idea. I will try this out