Skip to content

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Discussion: Additional Type Converters #339

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
erikwrede opened this issue Apr 28, 2022 · 0 comments
Closed

Discussion: Additional Type Converters #339

erikwrede opened this issue Apr 28, 2022 · 0 comments

Comments

@erikwrede
Copy link
Member

erikwrede commented Apr 28, 2022

In this repo, several issues and PRs propose adding additional Type Converters to natively support more PostgreSQL/Sqlalchemy[_utils] types in SqlAlchemyObjectTypes.

While most issues add support for types in libraries that are already included in dependencies, there is also a request to add additional dependencies to support even more types natively.

While I agree that adding extra types is beneficial, adding a new dependency to achieve that is problematic.

These issues include the addition of a dependency to geoalchemy2.

I've opened this issue to hear other opinions about adding dependencies like geoalchemy. These issues include the addition of a dependency to geoalchemy2. Do the convenience benefits of not manually adding your type converters outweigh the disadvantages of increasing the number of dependencies? What about an additional types library, similar to SQLAlchemy_utils, just for the graphene-sqlalchemy types?

Additionally, I want to collect additional types that should be supported here. So far, the following PRs/Issues exist:

Notably, incompatibilities between sqlalchemy_utils and the Postgres types have been reported. Test cases should account for that:

Another requested feature is the possibility of shadowing existing converters. This issue needs further discussion on how to implement it:

Due to the diversity of these requests, it would make sense to implement all the basic types in sqlalchemy_utils and sqlalchemy to avoid further issues. Let me know what you think!

@erikwrede erikwrede added this to the 3.0 milestone Apr 28, 2022
@graphql-python graphql-python locked and limited conversation to collaborators May 13, 2022
@erikwrede erikwrede converted this issue into discussion #345 May 13, 2022

This issue was moved to a discussion.

You can continue the conversation there. Go to discussion →

Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant