From 3516ca153c6b6da74ab2c48dde7098f993953175 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jovi De Croock Date: Thu, 16 May 2024 19:06:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] clarify example --- spec/Section 5 -- Validation.md | 14 ++++++++------ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/spec/Section 5 -- Validation.md b/spec/Section 5 -- Validation.md index 3170c55ab..718924814 100644 --- a/spec/Section 5 -- Validation.md +++ b/spec/Section 5 -- Validation.md @@ -591,15 +591,17 @@ fragment potentiallyConflictingArguments( ...commandFragment(command: $commandTwo) } -fragment safeFragmentArguments on Dog { - ...potentiallyConflictingArguments(commandOne: SIT, commandTwo: DOWN) +query { + pet { + ...potentiallyConflictingArguments(commandOne: SIT, commandTwo: DOWN) + } } ``` -If two fragment spreads with the same name supply different argument values, -their fields will not be able to merge. In this case, validation fails because -the fragment spread `...commandFragment(command: SIT)` and -`...commandFragment(command: DOWN)` are part of the visited selections that will +If two fragment spreads with the same name, and hence the same selection, +supply different argument values, their fields will not be able to merge. +In this case, validation fails because the fragment spread `...commandFragment(command: SIT)` +and `...commandFragment(command: DOWN)` are part of the visited selections that will be merged. If both of these spreads would have `$commandOne` or `$commandTwo` as the