Reproduction for extend schema parsing issue
#3670
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
trevor-scheer
changed the title
extend schema parsing issue
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We're currently using a very old version of the online parser and noticed schema extensions were broken. I wrote a few tests to see if the issue had been resolved and figured I'd contribute them.
Update: the last test I just pushed actually shows this isn't working as expected, so I've updated the PR title to say this is now a reproduction.
A schema extension with no
{ ... }is valid according to the spec, but the parser expects operation definitions to be there. This is different for a non-extended schema definition, which does require operation definitions).