Hi all,
We did implement GraphQL API for Saleor using graphene and want to extend it using federation.
Supporting federation seems pretty straightforward, you need to provide _service type with _sdl_ field to get schema and and directives to mark _key_, _external_ and _required_ fields. There is an external package that partially implements it here but relying on additional package for core functionality is suboptimal.
Is anybody working on implementing this in graphene? Are there any known blockers? If not, we're fine with writing our own and contributing here.
Mentioning few guys to start discussion: @syrusakbary, @jkimbo, @ekampf, @dan98765
I'm interested in this too and so I've been following this.
Here (#953) someone else already implemented something that apparently follows the federation specification.
Maybe @erebus1 and @anlauren would be interested in chiming in as well.
Yes there was a couple of discussions i have seen another one in stackoverflow, i wrote a hacky way to do so _around_ graphene, but i don't know the inside of the library enough to do this in there.
I was basically modifying the schema written by graphene to expose the right service description to the federation. The graphene-federation you mentioned started with this, now it could be good to get this inside graphene itself
:eyes:
@salwator as far as I'm aware no one is actively working on this. Would be great to see though so if you get anything working do feedback here.
Really interested in this issue if i can be of any help
Would love to help as well
I would like to help on this project
I am using graphene-federation library and i find it very useful already
I know that a lot of new features will come up and it would be nice if we could integrate them (@internal key...)
I have created a login_required decorator for graphene-federation. I dont know if it is well done but at least it works.
see doc and code here:
https://github.com/troptop/graphene_federation_required_login
Most helpful comment
I'm interested in this too and so I've been following this.
Here (#953) someone else already implemented something that apparently follows the federation specification.
Maybe @erebus1 and @anlauren would be interested in chiming in as well.