[gatsby-source-wordpress] null value from ACF field using Wordpress source

Description

An ACF file field ‘fichier’ has a inconsistent behavior, the field is sometimes null, but no way to predict when or which one (see screenshots). Maybe the field doesn’t get the data from WordPress at first launch but is filled when wordpress update the post, which updates the Gatsby data.

Wordpress:

• WP Gatsby Version 1.0.1
• WP GraphQL Version 1.1.5
• WPGraphQL for Advanced Custom Fields Version 0.4.0

Gatsby:

• “gatsby-source-wordpress”: “^4.0.1”,

My basic gatsby config:

{
  resolve: "gatsby-source-wordpress",
  options: {
    url: "https://xxxxxxxxx/graphql",
  },
},

If I force update the fields on the wordpress editor with the same value, while gatsby dev is running, the field gets finally filled on the Gatsby side.

Steps to reproduce

• Setup similar ACF fields.
• Run gatsby develop

Expected result

File should be filled with proper data.

Actual result

File is null.

Environment

  System:
    OS: Linux 5.9 Debian GNU/Linux 10 (buster) 10 (buster)
    CPU: (4) x64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-5300U CPU @ 2.30GHz
    Shell: 5.7.1 - /usr/bin/zsh
  Binaries:
    Node: 14.15.5 - /tmp/yarn--1613425950823-0.6922920903973984/node
    Yarn: 1.22.5 - /tmp/yarn--1613425950823-0.6922920903973984/yarn
    npm: 6.14.11 - /usr/bin/npm
  Languages:
    Python: 2.7.16 - /usr/bin/python
  Browsers:
    Firefox: 78.7.0esr
  npmPackages:
    gatsby: ^2.32.3 => 2.32.3 
    gatsby-image: ^2.11.0 => 2.11.0 
    gatsby-plugin-manifest: ^2.12.0 => 2.12.0 
    gatsby-plugin-react-helmet: ^3.10.0 => 3.10.0 
    gatsby-plugin-robots-txt: ^1.5.5 => 1.5.5 
    gatsby-plugin-sass: ^3.2.0 => 3.2.0 
    gatsby-plugin-sharp: ^2.14.1 => 2.14.1 
    gatsby-plugin-sitemap: ^2.12.0 => 2.12.0 
    gatsby-source-filesystem: ^2.11.0 => 2.11.0 
    gatsby-source-wordpress: ^4.0.1 => 4.0.1 
    gatsby-transformer-sharp: ^2.12.0 => 2.12.0 

[TylerBarnes]

@jooola we’ll use the info from this issue there as well, thanks for providing so much good info about the issue. We closed this one in favour of that one because we had also closed another issue in favour of that one (trying to prevent hopping through a chain of issues). Thanks again!

[jooola]

Ok, I feel this ticket is more advanced/broad than the new one #30755. I guess we will continue over there.