chore(business-unit): graphql transformers for Company and Division models

[ChristianMoll]

This PR aims to replace the current scaffolding in the Company and Division models with the real implementation.

• Adds parentUnit field as null value in Company to prevent associated errors because of missing field
• Adds parentUnit and topLevelUnit to buildFields where applicable
• Adds ancestors and inheritedStores fields to graphQL transformer sprevent associated errors because of missing fields
• Replaces topLevelUnit field with itself for Company in graphQL transformer to match referenceExpansion
• Replaces parentUnit and topLevelUnit with Companies in Division graphQL transformer to match referenceExpansion

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: fbc0ab4

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 32 packages

Name	Type
@commercetools-test-data/business-unit	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/quote-request	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/quote	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/staged-quote	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/core	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/graphql-types	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/associate-role	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/cart-discount	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/cart	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/category	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/channel	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/commons	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/custom-object	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/custom-view	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/customer-group	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/customer	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/discount-code	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/inventory-entry	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/order	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/payment	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/product-discount	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/product-selection	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/product-type	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/product	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/review	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/shipping-method	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/shopping-list	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/state	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/store	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/tax-category	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/zone	Minor
@commercetools-test-data/utils	Minor

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[tylermorrisford]

Would we want a test for the new graphql transformers?

[ChristianMoll]

Would we want a test for the new graphql transformers?

good catch! I will add some

[tylermorrisford]

I think this may just need typeId: 'business-unit' but I am not yet certain as to why 😿

[tylermorrisford]

I'm finding some other fields that may be missing from the graphql representation and should be added to the transformer: parentUnitRef, topLevelUnitRef, storesRef.

[ChristianMoll]

You're completely right, I missed those! I'll add them to the transformer and the tests

[tylermorrisford]

This is looking good! Do you think it would make sense to create different types for company and division? I'm wondering if that would allow for better typing, or if it would not accomplish much. I will try and get you some more eyes on this 🙏

[ChristianMoll]

This is looking good! Do you think it would make sense to create different types for company and division? I'm wondering if that would allow for better typing, or if it would not accomplish much. I will try and get you some more eyes on this 🙏

Afaik the only difference is the parent unit / ref always being null/undefined for the parent unit and the unitType being Company or Division accordingly, so we would get a type that's a bit stricter for those properties and there are already Company and Division types from the SDK to use as the base. I think it's a good idea.

[valoriecarli]

This is looking good! Do you think it would make sense to create different types for company and division? I'm wondering if that would allow for better typing, or if it would not accomplish much. I will try and get you some more eyes on this 🙏

Afaik the only difference is the parent unit / ref always being null/undefined for the parent unit and the unitType being Company or Division accordingly, so we would get a type that's a bit stricter for those properties and there are already Company and Division types from the SDK to use as the base. I think it's a good idea.

@tylermorrisford / @ChristianMoll I really like this and went back and forth on this issue it when I first built this. If we move forward with breaking it out, we should do the same for draft so there is symmetry (TCompany/ TDivision vs TBusinesUnit).

[tylermorrisford]

This is looking good! Do you think it would make sense to create different types for company and division? I'm wondering if that would allow for better typing, or if it would not accomplish much. I will try and get you some more eyes on this 🙏

Afaik the only difference is the parent unit / ref always being null/undefined for the parent unit and the unitType being Company or Division accordingly, so we would get a type that's a bit stricter for those properties and there are already Company and Division types from the SDK to use as the base. I think it's a good idea.

@tylermorrisford / @ChristianMoll I really like this and went back and forth on this issue it when I first built this. If we move forward with breaking it out, should we back and do the same for draft so there is symmetry (TCompany/ TDivision vs TBusinesUnit)?

I agree. Reduce the potential smell.

[tylermorrisford]

Love this - thank you for all this work!

[valoriecarli]

@ChristianMoll Thank you so much for adding these much needed improvements to our initial round 💯

[ChristianMoll]

@valoriecarli @tylermorrisford
thank you very much for all the great feedback and suggestions!