Practise the standard verbs for stitching GraphQL schemas together.
0 / 5 completed
1 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ two independently owned schemas into a single stitched graph so a client can query across both without knowing they're separate services.'
We 'merge schemas' — the standard, established collocation for combining independent GraphQL schemas into one graph. The other options aren't the recognised term here.
2 / 5
Fill in: 'Stitching schemas with a naming clash on a type can ___ one service's field silently shadowed by the other's during merge.'
We say a naming clash will 'leave' one field shadowed — the standard, natural collocation for the resulting conflict. The other options aren't idiomatic here.
3 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ conflicting type names by service before stitching, so an ambiguous field is never accidentally resolved by the wrong underlying schema.'
We 'namespace' a type — the standard, established collocation for prefixing conflicting names to keep them distinct. The other options aren't the recognised term here.
4 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ a stitched field's resolution to the owning service's own resolver, rather than duplicating that logic in the gateway layer.'
We 'delegate resolution' — the standard, established schema-stitching collocation for forwarding a field's execution to its source service. The other options aren't the recognised term here.
5 / 5
Fill in: 'We ___ the combined stitched schema in CI whenever either source schema changes, so an incompatible merge is caught before it reaches clients.'
We 'validate' a schema — the standard, simple collocation for confirming it's still consistent after a change. The other options are less idiomatic here.