TypeGraphQL VS apollo-server

In this tutorial, we're building a simple application which uses Cerbos inside of a GraphQL server. The server is written in typescript and uses type-graphql to create the schema and resolvers, and TypeDI to handle dependency injection.

Using decorators required setting an --experimentalDecorators experimental compiler flag. Several popular TypeScript libraries, such as type-graphql and inversify, rely on this implementation.

TypeGraphQL

Have you tried TypeGraphQL v2 (it's in beta). Some in this thread have reported success with it.

When moving away from Apollo Server, and you're looking for a replacement built with JavaScript or TypeScript, let me give you some options. If you want to keep building your GraphQL API schema first, you might want to consider Mercurius (which relies on Fastify) or GraphQL Yoga. If you're going to build your GraphQL API code or resolver first, have a look at TypeGraphQL or Nexus. Alternatively, there are great GraphQL-as-a-Service solutions such as StepZen in case you no longer want to build, maintain and host your own GraphQL API.

There are two main approaches to keeping the types of the GraphQL schema and entities in business logic in sync. You can generate the schema based on your TypeScript code (e.g. TypeGraphQL), or you can generate types based on your schema (e.g. GraphQL Code Generator). We opted for the latter since it slotted right into our existing GraphQL server implementation using Apollo Server.

I've used tools (e.g. TypeGraphQL) in the past, and for smaller schemas I've just manually written the schema.

I'll be honest and say I don't think python is the right language to implement graphql. It's possible of course and if you're looking for a graphene tutorial, I'm sure you can find one (and I'll help you evaluate one, if you'd like). I'd personally go with node.js, typescript, and typegraphql.

Foal's dependencies have been updated so as to support the latest version of TypeGraphQL.

Another interesting point is that executing fetches on the server can allow developers to more easily leverage caching. Next.js already handles caching out-of-the-box and I’m curious to see if the wider adoption of RSC reduces the need to combine React with solutions like Apollo Server and Apollo Client. While there are other benefits to these tools, RSC could provide similar caching behavior without the need to invest in a GraphQL solution.

There are several GraphQL server implementations, however, for this tutorial, we'll utilize Apollo GraphQL's Apollo Server, a lightweight and flexible JavaScript server that makes it easy to build GraphQL APIs.

As I mentioned, their main GraphQL server package is[1], so that's where the confusion came from. Thanks.

[1] https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-server/blob/9817bc47...

While working on this blog post, I learned that Apollo Server, the most popular GraphQL server for typescript, uses a similar method for adding error codes to GraphQL. It even lets you add custom errors. Hopefully, someday other GraphQL server projects will follow them. Until then, we’ve got a strong indication we took the right approach.

GraphQL is just a schema, there are many different implementations of a GraphQL server, AppSync being one of them. I mentioned Apollo server in this series as well.

After some head-scratching, I opened an issue on Apollo Server’s GitHub repository. There, Apollo Server contributor @​glasser shared a helpful suggestion: why not invoke our AuthPlugin from Apollo Server’s context function? Throwing from context would ensure we can control the HTTP status response without having to introduce more methods and error checks to our AuthPlugin (like unexpectedErrorProcessingRequest). With that suggestion in mind, we rewrote our AuthPlugin as follows:

Apollo as a middleware in Express.js, actually.

Apollo Server 3 Cookie Issue #5775

Lastly, instead of writing our API core ourselves, we'll be using the star of this episode --- Apollo Server (a.k.a. GraphQL server). It has detailed documentation available here.