feat(link): add proto_paths support

[DLillard0]

Summary:
Previously, this pr[3206] only processed the proto_paths during gen, but when using tailcall start, there will still be path problems, so it is necessary to save the proto_paths information on the link to ensure that the path can be processed correctly during tailcall start.

Config:

{
  "inputs": [
    {
      "proto": {
        "src": "news.proto",
        "url": "http://localhost:50051",
        "protoPaths": ["tailcall-fixtures/fixtures/protobuf"]
      }
    }
  ],

  ...
}

Output:

schema
  @server
  @upstream
  @link(
    src: "news.proto"
    # new attr
    proto_paths: ["tailcall-fixtures/fixtures/protobuf"]
    type: Protobuf
  ) {
  query: Query
}
...

Issue Reference(s):
None

Build & Testing:

• I ran cargo test successfully.
• I have run ./lint.sh --mode=fix to fix all linting issues raised by ./lint.sh --mode=check.

Checklist:

• I have added relevant unit & integration tests.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have performed a self-review of my code.
• PR follows the naming convention of <type>(<optional scope>): <title>

[tusharmath]

@DLillard0 Thanks for the PR! Our goal ultimately is to drop link from the GraphQL configuration. I have talked about it in detail over here - https://tailcall.run/blog/migrating-to-graphql-configuration-v2/

We basically two options now:

1. Generate a file with just the schema information without any links.
2. Generate two files: a main.graphql and a main.yml (for links).

I prefer Option 1 because its a lot simpler to work with. Let me know what you think?

[DLillard0]

@tusharmath I also agree with Option 1. If there is a real need for modular configuration management, can we also implement the current link functionality by providing an additional library? This will decouple it from the current library and reduce the current complexity.
Is there a timeline for removing the link from the GraphQL configuration?

[tusharmath]

I also agree with Option 1. If there is a real need for modular configuration management, can we also implement the current link functionality by providing an additional library?

It's always nice to organize configurations into smaller files. In large organizations, these files are owned and maintained by individual teams. Link functionality still exists however it is only available in the YML/JSON format.

Is there a timeline for removing the link from the GraphQL configuration?

This feature has already been shipped, you can try it out.

[DLillard0]

@tusharmath I have two more questions.

1. Is there any way to generate a YML/JSON configuration file? like tailcall gen?
2. Moving the Link functionality to the configuration file also seems to require dealing with the path problem of GraphQL dependencies. It seems that Link still needs to support proto_paths.

[tusharmath]

Is there any way to generate a YML/JSON configuration file? like tailcall gen?

Not via tailcall gen. But I don't think these are very complicated to hand-write.

Moving the Link functionality to the configuration file also seems to require dealing with the path problem of GraphQL dependencies. It seems that Link still needs to support proto_paths.

You are right, we need to still update config::link.rs to support proto_path. However, I think the generated file should not contain any @link directives.

[DLillard0]

Thanks for your answer!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 86.41%. Comparing base (76fc565) to head (f4496e6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3222      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   86.39%   86.41%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         282      282              
  Lines       28724    28773      +49     
==========================================
+ Hits        24816    24865      +49     
  Misses       3908     3908              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.