Lightrun Answers was designed to reduce the constant googling that comes with debugging 3rd party libraries. It collects links to all the places you might be looking at while hunting down a tough bug.
And, if you’re still stuck at the end, we’re happy to hop on a call to see how we can help out.
Integrating support for graphene-sqlalchemy-filter into code base
See original GitHub issueAs there is limited filtering with graphene-sqlalchemy, I have been using graphene-sqlalchemy-filter which has many stock filters included. Unfortunately the developer seems to have lost interest in the code base and a critical PR to add support for Graphene 3.0 has been unmerged for six months.
I have tried contacting the developer a few times without response.
As the filtering code for the add-on is contained in the graphene-sqlalchemy-filter package’s two files, I propose merging this code into graphene-sqlalchemy.
Would this be OK?
Issue Analytics
- State:
- Created a year ago
- Comments:6 (3 by maintainers)
Top Results From Across the Web
Top Related Medium Post
Top Related StackOverflow Question
Troubleshoot Live Code
Top Related Reddit Thread
Top Related Hackernoon Post
Top Related Tweet
Top Related Dev.to Post
Top Related Hashnode Post
We have an interested party in adding the filtering syntax.
I just followed your link from the filter repo, so I thought I might leave a reply here as well 😃
While in general I support the idea of adding filters to graphene-sqa, and like the approach that the author has taken, I think a simple merge won’t do it. The filters should be deeply integrated into this repo to allow for even more features, so this has to be planned. But I think using this library as inspiration would be a great start. Maybe we can work something out together? Or maybe one of the maintainers of this repo has any supporting or opposing ideas to consider before starting. It would be sad to see yet another merge request get stuck unapproved for a long time.