typesafe client: @OutputOnly

[t1]

fixes #522 and a minor bug when an error has a path to a nested field but the container value is null

[phillip-kruger]

As I said in the issue, I do not think we should introduce this new annotation, but rather use @Ignore as on the server.

[t1]

I just non-suggestively asked the developers in my team. All 5 of them said the same thing: using @Ignore on the setter needs a lot of explanation and learning; a separate @OutputOnly is much easier to understand. We probably should think about adding this to the server, too.

[phillip-kruger]

We have discussed this and decided to align with JsonB.
See https://javaee.github.io/jsonb-spec/users-guide.html#ignoring-properties

[phillip-kruger]

@t1 - The client should also support the JsonB annotation (as the server do) @JsonbTransient and other JsonB annotations.

[phillip-kruger]

There are also other annotations that work this way (field = both, setter = input and getter=output).
@Name , DateFormat, NumberFormat , Description and so on. The client should work the same way.

See for example https://download.eclipse.org/microprofile/microprofile-graphql-1.0.3/microprofile-graphql.html#naming

[t1]

@phillip-kruger : yes, you're right with everything you say. This is just not where the client currently is!

Annotating a setter as @JsonbTransient makes a lot of sense from the perspective of JSON-B where you think about de/serialization. But in the context of a class used as a client side GraphQL Input, it's strange to annotate a setter as @Ignore... there is a valid reasoning behind that, but it doesn't come naturally. A separate annotation would make things much easier to grasp.

[phillip-kruger]

@andymc12 - how does RESTClient do this ? Since JAX-RS also support JsonB annotation, does RESTClient do the same ?

@t1 - We should rather put effort into getting the client where it needs to be, than add annotations that later potentially will have to be removed.

[t1]

Let's talk about this in the next meeting

[phillip-kruger]

Would #316 solve this in another way (so you can now in your project define this an an alias ?)

[t1]

Would #316 solve this in another way (so you can now in your project define this an an alias ?)

We would need way to move a @OutputOnly field-level Stereotype annotation to a @Ignore annotation on the setter... possible, but not here, yet.

[phillip-kruger]

Closing, as we decided to do @ignore(on=INPUT) and this will first need some changes in MicroProfile API