Question: TypeGraphQL uses functions to prevent circular dependencies-wouldn't this package's API suffer from the same problem?

the quote from: https://19majkel94.github.io/type-graphql/docs/types-and-fields.html

Why function syntax, not simple { type: Rate } config object? Because this way we solve problems with circular dependencies (e.g. Post <--> User), so it was adopted as a convention. You can use the shorthand syntax @Field(() => Rate) if you want to safe some keystrokes but it might be less readable for others.

[pie6k]

Thanks @capaj @19majkel94 .

Right, if you’ve got circular dependencies you’d have to use type lazy function like:

import { ObjectType, Field } from 'typegql';

@ObjectType()
class Car {
  @Field({ type: () => Person })
  owner() {
    return db.findPersonByCarId(this.id);
  }
  @Field() id: number;
}

@ObjectType()
class Person {
  @Field() id: number;
  @Field() name: string;
  @Field({ type: () => Car })
  car() {
    return db.findCarByOwnerId(this.id);
  }
}

Note it might be not needed anymore if typescript itself would make reflection metadata lazy in its core.

[MichalLytek]

@capaj I’ve proposed that a long time ago: https://github.com/indigotech/graphql-schema-decorator/issues/65#issuecomment-370560844

But since that time our visions have splited - this is what @pie6k said:

So I think it’s better when users have an ability to choose between library vs. framework and also the competition makes the development faster 😄