chore: add clarifying note for composite and expand term

[JoviDeCroock]

Resolves #1076

This PR adds a clarifying note for the term composite in prior versions of the spec and expands the term into Object, Interface or Union type wherever it was found

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for graphql-spec-draft ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	7222ffb
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/graphql-spec-draft/deploys/66044c49610d1a00084c70e4
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-1078--graphql-spec-draft.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site configuration.

[benjie]

I support the replacement of "composite types" in section 5 with more explicit language.

[benjie]

I think this helps clarity 👍

[benjie]

@graphql/tsc Can we get another approval, then we'll wait a week or two for any more feedback and if no-one has concerns I think we should merge 👍

[leebyron]

I’m OK with this change however I’m pretty sure the term composite type shows up all over the graphql-js repository as well

…

On Wed, Feb 14, 2024 at 6:03 AM Benjie ***@***.***> wrote: @graphql/tsc <https://github.com/orgs/graphql/teams/tsc> Can we get another approval, then we'll wait a week or two for any more feedback and if no-one has concerns I think we should merge 👍 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1078 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAAMHUXEXI4CJAJERX75E6LYTS7Z7AVCNFSM6AAAAABDGNLD66VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTSNBTHAZTAMZSHE> . You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[Keweiqu]

Makes sense! Thanks for doing this

[JoviDeCroock]

As suggested in yesterdays WG this has been replaced with a note about composite

[martinbonnin]

I was thinking we would keep "composite" out of the normative sections (initial PR)?

And add a non-normative note that "composite" may be found in other contexts:

Note: implementers may use the term composite for a type that is either an object, interface
or union.

Don't want to bikeshed this too much though so either is fine by me 👍

[benjie]

@JoviDeCroock I suggest you undo your force-push and then add a note along the lines of what you just added; essentially the change should be to remove "composite" from most places (preferring explicitness) and then to add a non-normative note indicating that previous versions of the spec used and some implementers use the term "composite type" to refer to Object, Interface and Union types.

Also, the letter after Note: should be a capital since that is what is rendered in the note box (the Note: prefix is stripped out).

Stale

[JoviDeCroock]

@benjie the force push was just to update this branch with main I re-added the composite rephrasing and updated the note. Thank you for the review 🙌

[benjie]

Looking good!

[martinbonnin]

👍

[benjie]

This one got undone accidentally I think!

[benjie]

Looks great to me 👍

[benjie]

I believe @Keweiqu and @leebyron's previous reviews are still valid with the latest state, though they may want to review the added note.

[mjmahone]

It's nice to have a word to use for "Types that are schema-defined vertex types in your graph" but Composite isn't a great word for that, agree.