Add spec text for KnownOperationType

[yaacovCR]

see: graphql/graphql-js#3592

[netlify]

✅ Deploy Preview for graphql-spec-draft ready!

Name	Link
🔨 Latest commit	12b3a1e
🔍 Latest deploy log	https://app.netlify.com/sites/graphql-spec-draft/deploys/6287349871c9d50008520c8b
😎 Deploy Preview	https://deploy-preview-947--graphql-spec-draft.netlify.app
📱 Preview on mobile	Toggle QR Code... Use your smartphone camera to open QR code link.

---

To edit notification comments on pull requests, go to your Netlify site settings.

[yaacovCR]

See graphql-js PR: graphql/graphql-js#3601
Spec enhancement suggested by @benjaminjkraft

[benjaminjkraft]

Neat. Not sure what the style in the spec is -- would it make sense to refer to this from 3.3.1 which describes this more informally ("if [the mutation root type] is not provided, the service does not support mutations")?

[benjie]

The text as currently proposed will conflict with https://github.com/graphql/graphql-spec/pull/825/files#diff-607ee7e6b71821eecadde7d92451b978e8a75e23d596150950799dc5f8afa43e which is currently RFC2. Either #825 needs to be refactored to not use mutation in the examples, or this should use a separate example schema for this validation rule. May I suggest we follow the latter approach as it allows our example schema to grow over time.

[yaacovCR]

Neat. Not sure what the style in the spec is -- would it make sense to refer to this from 3.3.1 which describes this more informally ("if [the mutation root type] is not provided, the service does not support mutations")?

There seem to be a few references to Validation Rules, namely:

https://github.com/graphql/graphql-spec/blame/main/spec/Section%202%20--%20Language.md#L1134-L1135

We could try that here for sure, in my opinion.

May I suggest something => perhaps it makes sense for you to "take over" this PR, considering you will be leading the discussion at the WG and this rule was your idea to begin with. I sometimes wish GitHub had a UI for transferring ownership of PRs => I think it would be relatively easy for you to reopen a new one, and -- if you do -- I will close this one in favor of yours.

[yaacovCR]

The text as currently proposed will conflict with https://github.com/graphql/graphql-spec/pull/825/files#diff-607ee7e6b71821eecadde7d92451b978e8a75e23d596150950799dc5f8afa43e which is currently RFC2. Either #825 needs to be refactored to not use mutation in the examples, or this should use a separate example schema for this validation rule. May I suggest we follow the latter approach as it allows our example schema to grow over time.

If @benjaminjkraft takes this over (as I hope he will) he might want to adopt this suggestion, otherwise I will try to work on it. Good catch!

[benjaminjkraft]

Sure, I can take over the PR and add a separate schema.

[benjaminjkraft]

Replaced by #955.