shashank
10/10/2018, 5:12 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 5:31 PMfaithful
10/10/2018, 5:33 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 5:34 PMfaithful
10/10/2018, 5:34 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 5:34 PMfaithful
10/10/2018, 5:35 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 5:35 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 5:35 PMfaithful
10/10/2018, 5:36 PMGreyson
10/10/2018, 5:44 PMfaithful
10/10/2018, 5:51 PMfaithful
10/10/2018, 5:53 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 6:12 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 6:19 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 6:19 PMnilan
10/10/2018, 6:24 PMnuno
10/10/2018, 6:48 PMshashank
10/10/2018, 7:00 PMfaithful
10/11/2018, 6:41 AMshashank
10/11/2018, 6:52 AMhalborg
10/11/2018, 7:11 AMhalborg
10/11/2018, 8:52 AMhalborg
10/11/2018, 8:58 AMRory Kelly
10/11/2018, 8:58 AMSach97
10/11/2018, 10:54 AMUxname
10/11/2018, 1:40 PMUxname
10/11/2018, 1:40 PMGreyson
10/11/2018, 2:07 PMGreyson
10/11/2018, 2:25 PMcreateAccount(email: String!, company: String!, accountType: AccountType, assets: AssetCreateManyInput): Account
. This would be implemented in the same way as the newUserWithPosts
mutation in the Prisma-Client blog post. But for some reason, the generated interface for AssetCreateManyInput looks like this:
export interface AssetCreateManyInput {
create: string;
connect: string;
}
Am I implementing this mutation wrong in my schema.graphql? Should I have a different type besides AssetCreateManyInput? I'm assuming that it would infer that type from the imported generated prisma.graphql