How to display source file for conflicting fields types?

Hi, When building my site containing a lot of .md files full of frontmatter, I get warnings about conflicting field types. This is a valuable information, but it’s missing one thing: which files are conflicting.

I’ve seen this conversation here where you can see screenshots with the path to the source file.

But for me source is not showing up.

MarkdownRemark.frontmatter.mepheader.provenance.prov_number:
 - type: object
   value: { anote: [Object] }
 - type: string
   value: 'p. 264'
MarkdownRemark.frontmatter.head:
 - type: object
   value: { dateline: 'sans date', persname: [Object], object: 'Dessin de M. Isabey de la manufacture des frères Sevennes à Rouen.' }
 - type: string
   value: '[1133]'

Digging a little where the message is actually prompted, I’ve found that the source line is displayed only if the node has a description:

type-conflict-reporter.js

    report.log(
      `${this.selector}:${sortedByTypeName
        .map(
          ([typeName, { value, description }]) =>
            `\n - type: ${typeName}\n   value: ${formatValue(
              value
            )}${description && `\n   source: ${description}`}` // <-- Here
        )
        .join(``)}`
    )

I’ve quickly looked around but didn’t find what is this description. On the node interface documentation page no sign of it.

I think adding this description is not the way to go, but I’m missing leads.

Any suggestion how to proceed?

[vladar]

@henricazottes You are right about first - it is a node id that you can use to find a root ancestor node. I guess the best advice I can give is to try to restore this line

The implementation of this function still exists here but it is not easily accessible from type conflict reporter anymore. I suspect it was the main reason for the change.

So you will probably have to re-implement it using node store directly. I would suggest putting this new implementation in the utils folder for now as a standalone utility function.

[henricazottes]

You’re right, I’ll wait for his answer before investigating more