Skip to content

Fix wrong meaning in "thinking in graphs - legacy" #917

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Nov 5, 2020
Merged

Fix wrong meaning in "thinking in graphs - legacy" #917

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
4be1b48
Fix wrong meaning in "thinking in graphs - legacy"
0000marcell Sep 18, 2020
f031339
Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/source' into source
0000marcell Nov 4, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion src/content/learn/BestPractice-ThinkingInGraphs.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ In the diagram above, all entry points (REST, GraphQL, and RPC) into the system

Sometimes, you will find yourself working with legacy data sources that do not perfectly reflect how clients consume the data. In these cases, prefer building a GraphQL schema that describes how clients use the data, rather than mirroring the legacy database schema.

Build your GraphQL schema to express "what" rather than "how". Then you can improve your implementation details without breaking the interface with older clients.
Build your GraphQL schema to express "how" rather than "what". Then you can improve your implementation details without breaking the interface with older clients.

## One Step at a time
> Get validation and feedback more frequently
Expand Down