It seems there is a recent trend of using adapters that expose data stores over graphql automatically, which is kind of scary.
The graphql usage I'm used to works more or less the same as REST. You control the schema and the implementation, you control exactly how much data store access is allowed, etc. It's just like REST except the schema syntax is different.
The main advantage of GraphQL IMO is the nice introspection tools that frontend devs can use, i.e. GraphiQL and run queries from that UI. It's like going shopping in a nice supermarket.
Not particularly scary. For something like Hasura, resolvers are opt-in, not opt-out. So that should alleviate some of your concerns off the bat.
For Postgraphile, it leans more heavily on the database, which I prefer. Set up some row-level access policies along with table-level grant/revoke, and security tends to bubble up. There's no getting past a UI or middleware bug to get the data when the database itself is denying access to records. Pretty simple to unit test, and much more resistant to data leakage when the one-off automation script doesn't know the rules.
I also love that the table and column comments bubble up automatically as GraphiQL resolver documentation.
Agreed about the introspection tools. I can send a GraphiQL URL to most junior devs with little to no SQL experience, and they'll get data to their UI with less drama than with Swagger interfaces IMO. (Though Swagger tends to be pretty easy too compared to the bad old days.)
But as people noted, it's not the "can this get the data" unit testing that's a problem here. It's the performance issues.
> I can send a GraphiQL URL to most junior devs with little to no SQL experience, and they'll get data to their UI with less drama
But that's like giving direct (read) database access to someone that was taught the syntax of SQL but not the performance implications of the different types of queries. Sure, they can get the data they want; but the production server may fall over when someone hits the front end in a new way. Which is, I think, what a lot of people are talking about when they talk about GraphQL having load issues based on the front end changing their call.
None of those are automatic. Any API you write still has to remember to put in LIMIT clauses, to avoid OFFSET. And then you have to actually write the API rather than have it generated for you.
There are no free lunches, especially with regard to security and sanity checks.
> It seems there is a recent trend of using adapters that expose data stores over graphql automatically, which is kind of scary.
I think that's the part where I have a disconnect. To me, both REST and GraphQL likely need to hit the database to get their data, and I would be writing the code that does that. Having the front end's call directly translated to database queries seems insane. The same would be true if you wrote a REST API that hit the database directly and took table/field names from query parameters; only... we don't do that because it would be stupid.
The graphql usage I'm used to works more or less the same as REST. You control the schema and the implementation, you control exactly how much data store access is allowed, etc. It's just like REST except the schema syntax is different.
The main advantage of GraphQL IMO is the nice introspection tools that frontend devs can use, i.e. GraphiQL and run queries from that UI. It's like going shopping in a nice supermarket.