## Reduce type leakage between GraphQL schemas
### Why
Twenty runs two separate GraphQL schemas: **core** and **metadata**.
NestJS's `@nestjs/graphql` uses a global `TypeMetadataStorage` that
accumulates all decorated types across all modules. When each schema is
built, every registered type leaks into both schemas regardless of which
module it belongs to.
This means the core schema's generated TypeScript
(`generated/graphql.ts`) contained ~2,700 lines of types that only
belong to the metadata schema (and vice versa). This creates confusion
about type ownership, inflates generated code, and makes it harder to
reason about which API surface each schema actually exposes.
### How
**1. Patch `@nestjs/graphql` to support schema-scoped type resolution**
- **(Already done)** Added a `resolverSchemaScope` option to
`GqlModuleOptions`, allowing each schema to declare a scope (e.g.
`'metadata'`)
- `ResolversExplorerService` now filters resolvers by a
`RESOLVER_SCHEMA_SCOPE` metadata key, so each schema only sees its own
resolvers
- `GraphQLSchemaFactory` now performs a **reachability walk**
(`computeReachableTypes`) starting from scoped resolver return types and
arguments, only including types that are transitively referenced —
handling unions, interfaces, and prototype chains
- Type definition storage and orphaned reference registry are cleared
between schema builds to prevent cross-contamination
**2. Register `ClientConfig` as orphaned type in metadata schema**
Since `ClientConfig` is needed in the metadata schema but not directly
returned by a resolver, it's explicitly declared via
`buildSchemaOptions.orphanedTypes`.
**3. Regenerate frontend types and fix imports**
- `generated/graphql.ts` shrank by ~2,700 lines (types moved to where
they belong)
- `generated-metadata/graphql.ts` gained types like `ClientConfig` that
were previously missing
- ~500 frontend files updated to import from the correct generated file
Should be merged once https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/16206 has
been released + command run to prod
In this PR
- Remove usage of viewGroup.fieldMetadataId, both in BE and FE states.
- But we still need to properly populate it until we fully remove
viewGroup.fieldMetadataId from db and ORM entity (upcoming 3rd PR out of
3). fieldMetadataId was removed from CoreViewGroup type and
CreateViewGroupInput and is determined BE-side based on the associated
view's mainGroupByFieldMetadataId. **I expect this means a downtime on
viewGroup creation, until both FE and BE are deployed and cache is
flushed.** This seems acceptable to me as it only regards viewGroup
creation.
- this information is replaced by view.mainGroupByFieldMetadataID
- Handle view group creation, update and deletion in the BE as a
side-effect of a view creation, update or deletion. Optimistic effects
are still used
- Add validation at view creation or update regarding
mainGroupByFieldMetadata
Left to do in 3rd PR
- Remove viewGroup.fieldMetadataId from db and ORM entity
- Restore feature allowing to update an existing grouped view's group by
field (already OK on BE side but need to rebuild FE optimistic)
# Introduction
Adding view-group to core engine v2
Following https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty/pull/15010 ( same pattern )
## What's done
- Created flat-view-group
- flat view group runner
- flat view group builder
- create view group service v2 and input transpilers
- refactor the existing view group resolver to fix standard (
BREAKING_CHANGE on graphql api update especially ) REST stays the same
- refactored the front to consume the mutations autogenerated
close https://github.com/twentyhq/core-team-issues/issues/1665
# Context
We have recently migrated from workspace.views to core.views. While
doing it, we've lost the optimistic rendering on views in frontend. This
is an issue for viewField and viewGroups that are persisted without
having an intermediate storing layer (viewFilters, viewSorts,
viewFilterGroups are not directly persisted when we do the changes,
therefore we have an underlying layer to keep them and the optimistic
was implemented there already).
ViewFields have been treated in a previous PR, this PR focus on
ViewGroups
## What
Optimistic on ViewGroups
## Other
+ fix a bug in the sequencing to persist viewFilter + viewFilterGroups
Charles Bochet