On specifying ordered vs unordered enum definitions about graphql-spec

[benjie]

Good catch. In my opinion, like fields, they should be in the order in which they were defined, which effectively means tools are free to make their own decisions. Either way, the order should be stable in my opinion:

1. introspect a GraphQL schema
2. build a schema from these introspection results
3. introspect this new schema using the same introspection query

The results of 1 and 3 should be identical.

[cdaringe]

@benjie! long time, no-GitHub-see :)

Either way, the order should be stable in my opinion ...

Just to clarify, are you asserting that you think, in the spec, EnumTypeDefinition should specify that entries are ordered?

[martinbonnin]

We've been occasionaly hit by such sorting issues in Apollo Kotlin and the more I think about it the more I think the "good" order for tools is the schema order. Everything else is surprising and error prone.

Sorting codegen by name is dangerous because the schema author doesn't control the sorting anymore so adding an enum starting with "a" offsets all the subsequent ones. All in all, my favorite solution is to keep things as is and have tools that analyze schema changes output a warning for such order changes.

[benjie]

@cdaringe 👋 😁

Just to clarify, are you asserting that you think, in the spec, EnumTypeDefinition should specify that entries are ordered?

Yes; I was writing a reply here but figured more valuable to just make the changes I want to see... so please see explanation in #1063

[cdaringe]

Sounds good. Let’s move subsequent convo over there