apollo-client VS Nock

Actually, it's worse than that. Next has started throwing errors if it statically detects you even _importing_ hooks inside of a React Server Component environment:

- https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/10974

- https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/11167

To the point that Lenz Weber( a maintainer of Apollo Client, and my co-maintainer on Redux Toolkit), is considering resorting to a package that wraps and re-exports all of React's public API just to avoid that static analysis:

- https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/pull/11175

Apollo Client (18k ⭐) -> A comprehensive state management library for JavaScript that enables you to manage both local and remote data with GraphQL. Use it to fetch, cache, and modify application data, all while automatically updating your UI.

This currently doesn't work as expected so I have logged this issue in apollo client repo.

I understand this has something to do with the fact, that SvelteKit expects the client and server code to be completely identical - this has already prompted changes to rxjs and apollo is still pending to be fixed. I understand the reason behind being able to run rxjs and apollo on the server but

There is a long-standing issue with error caching (its absence, that is), which leads to errors being rendered as a loading state on the server side. Therefore, if you're doing SSR, you might want to design your schema in such a way that there are no intentional errors in queries whatsoever. To do so, we can use null values instead of NOT_FOUND errors (see how we essentially treated errors as data here?). Note how nothing stops us from setting the response code to 404 in case of a null value, should we want so.

Lol apollo client too.. saw this issue opened like, immediately after the release https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/10231

There were some caching issues, outlined here https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/6916 to be aware of

If you look at how major backend projects structure their code, it's almost always object-oriented TypeScript.

I submit for the record:

- Apollo Client: https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/blob/main/src...

- Storybook: https://github.com/storybookjs/storybook/blob/next/lib/chann...

- Nest: https://github.com/nestjs/nest/blob/master/packages/core/nes...

- MongoDB Driver: https://github.com/mongodb/node-mongodb-native/blob/main/src...

- Prisma: https://github.com/prisma/prisma/blob/main/packages/engine-c...

[※Alert: The following is a code example using the Apollo Client notation, but the Apollo Client does not support Suspense at this time. Github issue about Suspense support: https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/issues/9627]

So, why would you want a REAL server to mock request/reponses? You have a lot of intercepts today that sit on the network layer and you can define things like "If you send request to that endpoint, with that json, please return that Status" (for NodeJS example, Nock - https://github.com/nock/nock)

That said, folks seem to like "recording" features in these sorts of tools (Ruby's VCR, nock, etc), so maybe there's a future where I add something similar. I've always just found the ergonomics of those features awkward to deal with, especially having to flip back and forth between tests and fixtures files to figure out what's wired to what, but maybe there's a clean solution... perhaps a "live request" mode that just prints mock code snippets of request/response pairs passing through your app.

While not mocking per say I usually use nock for http calls. You can use nock.recorder.rec() to capture the http call to play back during test, That way you are always using "live" code but not making real calls to servers.

I looked at the service which is used to get the feed URLs from a blog URL and noticed it takes the html response of the blog URL and gets the links ( tags) by checking the type attribute value against a list of valid feed values. So, I decided to use a similar approach by getting the html response for a provided URL and checking the Content-Type header against a list of valid MIME types for a feed. I ended up updating the logic to test if a URL is a feed URL, returning it if true. If the URL is found to not be a feed URL, it would try to get the feed URLs assuming the URL is a blog URL. I tested and confirmed that the new logic worked for both blog and feed URLs. Then, I added some tests for the new function I added to test for a feed URL. Testing this ended up being simpler than I expected as all I had to do was mock the response of a test url (using nock), and then check if the function returned the correct boolean value for a url. I created a PR and noticed that some of the tests in another file were now failing. While I was investigating this, I got a review on my PR, requesting me to add another test to the file which had the failing tests. That file tested the API service as a whole. I found out that nock only mocks a URL's response for one request by default. And since I was now checking for a feed URL as well, the function which returned the feed URLs from a blog URL was throwing an error since the nock for that was used up. To fix this, I had to specify in the nock statement to mock the URL response for two requests:

There are libraries like https://github.com/nock/nock to prevent mocking the whole axios.

Use nock: https://github.com/nock/nock

Going based off the documentation I sent you in my last reply, there is an example that uses nock to emulate api responses. I haven't used nock myself, but the example seems pretty simple to use. You just need to take the example and change the response object to be the shape of what your getStuffFromDatabase function returns. That way your useCategory function runs as close to normally as possible, while providing a mock response value instead of hitting the database.

If you’re willing to venture into nodejs territory, then nock is a fantastic and simple to set up http mock server. https://github.com/nock/nock