Relay: Route returns first array element instead of whole array

[Nutelac]

this.props.users is object of first user instead of array. Note that top level GraphQL query users has the right type new GraphQLList(userType). Consider this code:

app.jsx:

import Users from './Users'
import HomeRoute from './HomeRoute'

React.render(<Relay.RootContainer Component={Users} route={new HomeRoute()} />, document.getElementById('app'))

Users.jsx:

class Users extends React.Component {
  render() {
    return (
      <div>
        // Error: undefined (.map) is not a function
        // this.props.users is first user object, should be array
        {this.props.users.map(user => {
          return <div>{user.name}</div>
        })}
      </div>
    )
  }
}

export default Relay.createContainer(Users, {
  fragments: {
    users: () => Relay.QL`
      fragment on User {
        name
      }
    `
  }
})

HomeRoute.js:

export default class extends Relay.Route {
  static routeName = 'HomeRoute'
  static path = '/'
  static queries = {
    users: (Component) => Relay.QL`
      query {
        users {
          ${Component.getFragment('users')}
        }
      }
    `,
  }
}

Where could be the problem? Thank you.

[yuzhi]

The Users container needs to know that it should be getting an array.
Can you try replacing fragment on User with fragment on User @relay(plural:true)?

[Nutelac]

Unfortunately, this does not works. It throws Invariant Violation: GraphQLFragmentPointer: Wrong plurality, single data ID supplied with plural fragment.. I'm pretty sure that this query returns array:

query UsersQuery {
  users {
    id
    name
  }
}

[Nutelac]

Here is repo.

[yungsters]

The problem you're running into is the same one that several others have been filing issues about. Basically, fields on the root are treated specially and assumed to either:

• Map to a single node (e.g. node(id: 123), me), or...
• Map to an array of nodes (e.g. nodes(ids: [123, 456])).

Your users field does not have any arguments, so it is assumed to respond with a single record. For now, if you create a root object (e.g. viewer) and add a users field on it, this should work. However, @yuzhi also brought up the point that you might actually want users to be a connection instead of a plural field. (If you ever have hundreds of users, you might want to paginate instead of getting them all back.)

I'll write up a more comprehensive issue to explain what the problem is, why it exists, current workarounds, and future plans.

[yungsters]

See #112 for a better explanation.