FieldWrapper not applied to fields in union resolver type

[matthiaskern]

Hi! First thanks to @dotansimha for his great effort on this project!

Describe the bug

I've run into a bit of an issue with a circular type definition in a union field, a custom field wrapper and the typescript-resolvers plugin. I would expect the parent field in the example below to be wrapped with FieldWrapper like it is the original type. As I'm using the same resolver(that looks like my FieldWrapper type) for two separate generated types, this currently results in a type error when using the generated ResolverTypes directly. A workaround is to override the Comment type with a mapper.

To Reproduce
Repo: https://codesandbox.io/s/exciting-bhaskara-s9qze
Steps to reproduce the behavior:

1. My GraphQL schema:

type Query {
    comment(id: ID!): Comment!
}

union CommentParent = Comment

type Comment {
    id: ID!
    parent: CommentParent!
}

2. My GraphQL operations:

# No operations

3. My codegen.yml config file:

schema: schema.graphql
documents: {}
generates:
  types.ts:
    plugins:
      - typescript
      - typescript-resolvers
    config:
      wrapFieldDefinitions: true
      fieldWrapperValue: |
        T | Promise<T> | ((args: unknown, context: GraphQLContext, info: GraphQLResolveInfo) => Promise<T> | T)

Expected behavior
A field that does get resolved to another resolver type should also be wrapped with the custom field wrapper.

I would expect this

type ResolversTypes = {
  Comment: ResolverTypeWrapper<Omit<Comment, 'parent'> & { parent: FieldWrapper<ResolversTypes['CommentParent']> }>;
  CommentParent: ResolversTypes['Comment'];
}

as opposed to the original:

type ResolversTypes = {
  Comment: ResolverTypeWrapper<Omit<Comment, 'parent'> & { parent: ResolversTypes['CommentParent'] }>;
  CommentParent: ResolversTypes['Comment'];
}

Environment:

• @graphql-codegen/add 2.0.2
• @graphql-codegen/cli 1.20.1
• @graphql-codegen/typescript 1.21.0
• @graphql-codegen/typescript-resolvers 1.19.0

Additional context

[limulus]

@matthiaskern Were you able to find a workaround for this, by chance? The only thing I have really been able to come up with is to avoid type checking with the Resolvers type, which obviously is not ideal.

[matthiaskern]

@limulus It's been a while, but I believe using mappers to the original resolver type to have alleviated the issue at the time, e.g.

      mappers:
        Comment: Comment