Allow excluding fields from interfaces #1975
Conversation
|
Would there be any value to having it separate? Like any scenarios we might want to allow it standalone? Otherwise I imagine that might have some footgun behavior if someone forgot to add both. |
I can't think of any benefit in having it separate other than avoiding the binary incompatible change. Just thought to point it out just in case there was something I might have missed |
# Conflicts: # core/src/main/scala-2/caliban/schema/SchemaDerivation.scala # core/src/main/scala-3/caliban/schema/SchemaDerivation.scala
|
@ghostdogpr If I merge this in the next release will need to be 2.5.0 due since there are binary incompatible changes in this PR. Are we okay with that? |
|
In theory yes. I'd like to wait for the zio-http RC4 release to do all the breaking changes at once (with also the Play upgrade) so I hope it won't take too long. If we merge this we'll have to wait for the next release, but we can always do bug fixes in a branch if we really need to. |
Ok sounds good to me 👍 |
|
By the way I wonder whether we should have a |
|
We could add that label 👍 |
kyri-petrou
added
the
breaking change
# Conflicts: # build.sbt
Closes #1829.
@paulpdaniels what are your thoughts on this approach? I thought it might be better to reuse the same annotation and add the option to provide a list of field names that you want to hide from the interface. The change is not binary compatible but it's largely source compatible so users won't need to migrate any code
Alternatively, we could add a separate annotation that is applied on fields if we think it's more appropriate