Inheritance

In some cases, inheritance can help to not repeating yourself, better organisation, clearer schema, easier interfaces implementation...

Imagine you have something like that:

This is how we will implement it:

# First, let's define our mother class
Character:
    type: object
    heirs: # the opposite of « inherits »
           # optional if « inherits » already exists on daughters classes
      - CharacterWarrior
      - CharacterWizard
    config:
        fields:
            id: {type: Int!}
            type: {type: String!}
            name: {type: String!}
            staminaPoints: {type: Int!}

# Then let's define our daughters classes
CharacterWarrior:
    type: object
    inherits: [Character] # the opposite of « heirs » 
                          # optional if « heirs » already exists on mother class
    config:
        fields:
            furyPoints: {type: Int!}

CharacterWizard:
    type: object
    inherits: [Character] # the opposite of « heirs » 
                          # optional if « heirs » already exists on mother class
    config:
        fields:
            magicPoints: {type: Int!}

This is equivalent to:

CharacterWarrior:
    type: object
    config:
        fields:
            id: {type: Int!}
            type: {type: String!}
            name: {type: String!}
            staminaPoints: {type: Int!}
            furyPoints: {type: Int!}

CharacterWizard:
    type: object
    config:
        fields:
            id: {type: Int!}
            type: {type: String!}
            name: {type: String!}
            staminaPoints: {type: Int!}
            magicPoints: {type: Int!}

« So, we defined our types, but how can I query furyPoints field for CharacterWarrior only? »

To do that, you should use Inline Fragments, e.g.:

{
    characters {
        id
        type
        name
        staminaPoints
        
        ... on CharacterWarrior {
            furyPoints
        }
        
        ... on CharacterWizard {
            magicPoints
        }
    }
}

« But it does not work??? »

Yes, we should refactor our types:

• Character will be an interface
• CharacterWarrior and CharacterWizard will implement the interface Character
• CharacterWarrior and CharacterWizard will extend configuration fields of interface Character

Character:
    type: interface
    config:
        # depending of `value.type`, this resolver should 
        # returns `CharacterWarrior` or `CharacterWizard`
        resolveType: "@=query('character_type_resolver', value.type)"
        fields:
            id: {type: Int!}
            type: {type: String!}
            name: {type: String!}
            staminaPoints: {type: Int!}

CharacterWarrior:
    type: object
    inherits: [Character] # We don't have to implement all `Character` fields
    config:
        interfaces: [Character] # `CharacterWarrior` implements `Character` interface
        fields:
            furyPoints: {type: Int!}

CharacterWizard:
    type: object
    inherits: [Character] # We don't have to implement all `Character` fields
    config:
        interfaces: [Character] # `CharacterWizard` implements `Character` interface 
        fields:
            magicPoints: {type: Int!}

Make sure to register CharacterWarrior and CharacterWizard as types in your overblog_graphql configuration, otherwise it cannot be found:

overblog_graphql:
   definitions:
      schema:
         query: Query
         types: [CharacterWarrior, CharacterWizard]

Notes:

• Inheritance works only with the generated types
• Type can be inherited even from any type (from different files)
• Type must be of same type to be extended, only object types can also inherit from interface type
• heirs is the inverse of inherits section
• Inheritance priority is defined by the order in the inherits section.
• Inheritance use internally array_replace_recursive php function. for example CharacterWizard config is the result of array_replace_recursive(CharacterConfig, CharacterWizardConfig)

Decorators:

You can also create decorator types to be used as reusable templates. Decorators are only virtual and will not exists in final schema. That is the reason why decorator should never be reference as type in schema definition.

Here is an example of a decorator type:

ObjectA:
    decorator: true
    config:
        fields:
            bar: {type: String!}

You can use interfaces with decorators. Because they are only virtual, you do not have to implement the interface on the decorator itself. But you have to implement it on the type you decorate.

Imagine the following situation:

Node:
    type: 'interface'
    config:
        # [...] resolveType logic unimportant here
        fields:
            id:
                type: 'ID!'
                # [...] resolve logic unimportant here

NodeEditPermission:
    type: 'object'
    decorator: true
    config:
        # This interface must be implemented by type which inherits from this decorator
        interfaces: ["Node"]
        fields:
            canEdit: 
                type: 'Boolean!'
                # The `value` is enforced to implement "Node" no matter which type uses this decorator.
                # The resolver could be for example a (cached) user of symfony/security authorization checker
                # which does ->isGranted([attribute] $attribute, [subject] $value)
                resolve: '@=query("Permission.nodeAttribute", "edit", value)'

Product:
    type: 'object'
    inherits: 
      - 'NodeEditPermission'
      # - 'NodeRemovePermission' 
      # - [...]
    config:
        fields:
            # Must implement "Node" interface because "NodeEditPermission" decorator requires it
            # Not implementing would raise an graphql error
            id:
                type: 'ID!'