I think I don't like this new way of querying relation data Docs:

// A `main` function so that we can use async/await
async function main() {

  // Read the previously created user from the database and print their posts to the console
  const postsByUser = await prisma
    .user({ email: "<mailto:bob@prisma.io|bob@prisma.io>" })
    .posts()
  console.log(`All posts by that user: ${JSON.stringify(postsByUser)}`)

}

What if i wanted to query the posts and something else like books. How would i do that? would it require two round trip requests

const postsByUser = await prisma
    .user({ email: "<mailto:bob@prisma.io|bob@prisma.io>" })
    .posts()
const booksByUser = await prisma
    .user({ email: "<mailto:bob@prisma.io|bob@prisma.io>" })
    .books()

We loose the info way of only one query to get all data...

{
    id
    posts {
       id
    }
   books {
     id
   }
}

So stick to prisma-binding and schema delegation

So i'm not missing anything. Just wanted to make sure. ty

I think, and I could be wrong, that using prisma-client abstract it from the top level to keep your queries & mutations simple. An interesting example is the “viewer” query + Resolver in the airbnb example: https://github.com/prisma/graphql-prisma-typescript/blob/master/src/resolvers/Query.ts#L43 https://github.com/prisma/graphql-prisma-typescript/blob/master/src/resolvers/Viewer.ts In you case, you could do:

# query/user.js
async function me(_, args, context) {
  const id = await getUserId(context);

  return context.prisma.user({ id });
}

& then, in your resolvers:

...

User: {
    books(root, args, context) {
      return context.prisma.user({ id: root.id }).books();
    },
    posts(root, args, context) {
      return context.prisma.user({ id: root.id }).posts();
    },
  },

You can also use the

$fragment

syntax to achieve this result and have better type safety than schema delegation https://www.prisma.io/docs/prisma-client/basic-data-access/reading-data-TYPESCRIPT-rsc3/#using-fragments-for-fine-grained-data-access What do you think about it?