dmoree

@danstarns @smkhalsa Is it possible to use additional labels on nodes to facilitate this approach? A proposal could be to use a directive on an interface declaration as in: ```graphql...

@darrellwarde If you’re looking for community feedback on this I would vote along with @smkhalsa for relationship interface fields

@nelsonpecora I saw your comment and looked at it again. I didn't look at it for too long, but the initial work is here: https://github.com/neo4j/graphql/compare/dev...dmoree:feature/top-level-union-interface Those are minimal changes to...

@angrykoala Sorry for not getting back sooner. I plan on moving forward with this, but I think I will hold off for a little bit as it touches a lot...

**Create and Connect** The above description outlines the case for special consideration for create and connect. To accommodate these operations a relationship type must be specified as a special property...

@cramatt You will only get the interface fields at that level in the where input. There exists a special key `_on` that allows for access to the fields on the...

I guess one could have a query and a mutation with the same name, but that probably wouldn't be advised. Even so, a field like `operation` that takes `"Query" |...

I see. I was not using any driver to store/retrieve `P6.5M` in the database. Rather, I was simply using Neo4j Browser to directly set a duration property on the node...

I appreciate you looking into this. I thought the browser uses this driver, but wasn't sure. The particular use case is I am trying to implement a `Duration` scalar in...

@reckter This can actually be achieved through the current implementation if connection fields were to be decoupled from `@relationship` fields. There really is no reason why this coupling should exist...