You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
My understanding is that unions are defined using protocols and that protocols, and the Node type in a connection needs to implement Encodable. Is it possible to make a connection for a union type?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hey, @cshadek. Sorry for the delay. Yeah, I think that's the case, indeed. I have some idea of how we could solve that by creating something like a ProtocolCodable protocol which would allow us to encode and decode protocols. That would require runtime registration of concrete types, though, which might be cumbersome.
@NeedleInAJayStack given the recent focus on improving connections, it might make sense to revisit this. Do you have an idea of how this might be achieved? The current solution is to create a wrapper type that has a field referring to the union or protocol, but this is obviously not ideal.
My understanding is that unions are defined using protocols and that protocols, and the
Node
type in a connection needs to implementEncodable
. Is it possible to make a connection for a union type?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: