Yaacov Rydzinski

The queries look fine what about the remote response?

> Mhhh, that's strange. I mean you did use subschemas as well [here](https://github.com/ardatan/graphql-tools/pull/4396/files#diff-553acfa814eafd6f94cc35e492d698983435d71208356730e697fb160b1c7951R78) I used local subschemas, i mean, not local schemas. so the executor is the default executor not...

Agree. We should have transform to change root field type, though, seems useful, might break if root types are ever nested, have to think about that more

Hmmm. Gave it another think and I am not sure that this should work. The vendorSchema his declaring that it requires both ID and UPC to resolve records, not either...

I wonder if you can get the either or functionality by setting up two subschema configuration objects with different merge parameters but the same actual endpoint

Requests consolidation is function of executors so yes they should share the same batching executor automatically

Note that the `@computed` directive already does something similar in creating a new subschema config, so we already have a pattern in which __directives__ duplicate the subschemaConfig object... So the...

@alexandra-c there is a PR open by @gmac to add this in #2554 are you able to comment there in terms of whether that is what you need

Definitely a bug, but we probably need to make sure to only send mutations for root fields? I have to look over more closely when I am able.

Ok, so not a bug? my mistake, we don't currently support nested mutations? Although we could consider a feature request, I am not sure how this would work in practice,...