Skip to content
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

Request: Validate meshrc config dynamically instead of from a static json schema #664

Open
jakeblaxon opened this issue Jul 13, 2020 · 1 comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@jakeblaxon
Copy link

There are times when the out-of-the-box plugins (i.e. transforms/handlers/etc.) aren't powerful enough to address a specific use case. The best option in these instances would be to use a custom-written plugin that allows its own custom config to be passed in. I've only been able to achieve this capability, however, by removing the validateConfig(config); statement from parse-config.ts in the runtime package.

Since we currently generate a json schema at build-time and use that for validation, this prevents us from adding our own custom plugins with their custom configs. My recommendation to solve this would be to dynamically call a 'validateConfig()' method from each plugin when parsing the config, so that we pass this responsibility off to the plugins themselves. That way, we can arbitrarily add new plugins to our graphql mesh, without having to update the base cli, runtime, and types packages each time. This gives us maximum modularity and the ability to write our own plugins if we need to. @Urigo what do think?

@ardatan ardatan added the enhancement New feature or request label Jul 14, 2020
@theguild-bot theguild-bot mentioned this issue Aug 11, 2022
@bwoody3142
Copy link

I also have the same use case, is there any update or progress on this issue?

@theguild-bot theguild-bot mentioned this issue Sep 28, 2023
This was referenced Apr 30, 2024
This was referenced May 7, 2024
klippx pushed a commit to klippx/graphql-mesh that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants