Problems work with the renamed field

When I add rules to a relation field such as messages, sometimes I may be want to get the messages NOT_READ or READ in one query. Just like this:

query {
  me {
    id
    messagesNotRead: messages(where: {status: NOT_READ}, orderBy: createdAt_DESC) {
        id
        status
    }
    messages(where: {status: READ}, orderBy: createdAt_DESC) {
        id
        status
    }
  }
}

But after use this middleware, add some rules(like isAuthenticated) to the messages field of type User, the result of the query above is not worked correctly. The renamed field messagesNotRead cannot work through the validation of the messages field. The value of messagesNotRead field is just the same of messages above:

{
  "data": {
    "me": {
      "id": "cjn105vxk00110759vg8eq8gz",
      "messagesNotRead": [
        {
          "id": "cjoy6mxbm011k0759uaito9hs",
          "status": "READ"
        },
        {
          "id": "cjoy3qcsj010807595jbtqt35",
          "status": "READ"
        },
      ],
      "messages": [
        {
          "id": "cjoy6mxbm011k0759uaito9hs",
          "status": "READ"
        },
        {
          "id": "cjoy3qcsj010807595jbtqt35",
          "status": "READ"
        },
        ]
    }
  }
}

when just rename the messages without an additional messages field，the renamed field just return null, not []:

query {
  me {
    id
    messagesNotRead: messages(where: {status: NOT_READ}, orderBy: createdAt_DESC) {
        id
      	status
    }
  }
}

{
  "data": {
    "me": {
      "id": "cjn105vxk00110759vg8eq8gz",
      "messagesNotRead": null
    }
  }
}

The expected result should like this:

query {
  me {
    id
    messages(where: {status: NOT_READ}, orderBy: createdAt_DESC) {
        id
      	status
    }
  }
}

{
  "data": {
    "me": {
      "id": "cjn105vxk00110759vg8eq8gz",
      "messages": []
    }
  }
}

[pantharshit00]

https://github.com/prisma/prisma/issues/3881#issuecomment-456842794

@maticzav this is totally unrelated to graphql-shield I think you can close this here 🙂

[baby1990]

@baby1990, let me know if you find any further information. Maybe this could be connected to field alias, could you try that as well?

Regardless, I think it would be super useful if we could have a common ground with a reproduction example. Let me know if you could compose that. 🙂

Actually, I tried to use the custom directives to do the permission instead of graphql-shield. But the problems not resolved. So I don’t think there is something wrong with graphql-shield.