sangria VS orval

I am taking a look at Resolver from the Sangria GraphQL library and I cannot figure out how calcComplexity works. The code in the `Success` us really confusing to me. Where is the complexity getting calculated?

I started taking a look at QueryReducer from the Sangria GraphQL library and I am having a really hard tracing the logic for rejectMaxDepth. More specifically, I don't understand why depth is a parameter to measureDepth, where it is coming from, and how the depth is being calculated in measureDepth.

Instead of constructing an object, it uses classes to define the types and operations for the schema that it generates. The schema generated by this implementation will have the same structure as the schema created with graphql-js. Using classes to define your schema has the advantage of being less mutable and more structured when writing code. Similar implementations can be found for TypeScript with the library TypeGraphQL or Sangria GraphQL for Scala.

As Api gateway we use sangria on top of Finagle (finch to be precise) and that has been a huge boon in making the connection between microservices and frontend seamless/safe.

In cases where the client needs to stay separate, we have had a good experience with Orval[1] to generate a fully-typed @tanstack/query client from our OpenAPI spec.

[1] https://orval.dev/

- Vite/React/Tailwind for the frontend, with [Orval](https://orval.dev/) to generate FE definitions based on the API spec.

For non-API/SPA use-cases, it also has good HTML support, with built-in Jinja and HTMX integrations. The docs are great (https://docs.litestar.dev/latest/ - not quite Django-tier but that's the gold standard), however the reference application is a tad too complex imo (https://github.com/litestar-org/litestar-fullstack).

https://github.com/litestar-org/awesome-litestar has a list of useful extensions - highly recommend trying it out if you are starting a new Python web project.

In order to generate the API client, there are a few options available, but we are going to use (Orval)[https://orval.dev]. Orval is a CLI tool that generates API clients based on an OpenAPI specification. It supports TypeScript, JavaScript, Axios, React, Vue, Angular and Svelte and it's highly customizable.

I would use "reveal": "never" if I don't care about the results of the command, for example, I generate swagger types using orval.dev on every folder open, but I want this to run in background as it's not that important, so I use "reveal": "never" for it.

we started using (and now contributing to) https://orval.dev/ this year which both generates the mocks using MSW as well as the client-side networking code (React Query in our case). It removes so much boilerplate its amazing.

wrote up the basics of our workflow few weeks ago https://betaacid.co/blog/api-contracts

Personally, find gRPC-Web very attractive but the current state of TypeScript/JS code-gen is very confusing and lacking.

I would love something like https://orval.dev for gRPC-web. Have I missed something or is it just early to expect it?

I tried a few libraries but couldn't get them to work or would generate unappealing results. I believe I'm hitting this issue with my local experiments. https://github.com/grpc/grpc-web/issues/535

This is a Library I've used in the past, https://github.com/anymaniax/orval

If you have OpenAPI specs to work with you could also use Orval (https://orval.dev/) to generate a lot of code. We’re just starting to evaluate it at work but so far the team that’s trialing it is liking it.

On the frontend we can use the OpenAPI docs to generate the TS types for our data structures. Not only types but fetch functions as well as react-query hook can be generated as well. And in this blog post you can see how to do that with a library called Orval.

On this page, we’ll use a code generator called Orval.