New Official Relay Tutorial
relay.dev2 pointsby davidmccabe1 comments
const [a, setA] = useRecoilState(atomA);
const [b, setB] = useRecoilState(atomB);
...
=> {
setA(a => a + 1);
setB(b => b + 1);
}}
const update = useTransactionalUpdate([atomA, atomB]);
...
=> {
update(([a, b]) => [a + b, b - a]);
}}
First of all, your GraphQL schema is basically append-only due to older clients that may remain in the wild. So you don't want to expose implementation details that may change.
Second, you want to write client code that handles mutations. This is easier if the data the client receives is organized in a UI-centric way. I'll give you a simple example that came up at work recently: a single conceptual category (a "user account") that, due to implementation details, was spread across two different tables with different columns. Because the GraphQL schema in this case mapped each table to its own GraphQL type, somebody was then able to write client code that only handled one type and not the other, causing an inconsistent UI.
I would suggest thinking carefully about your GraphQL schema, treating it as an API, and not auto-generating it. Of course, you want it to be convenient to construct, just not fully automatic and thoughtless.