Support defining GraphQL types as TypeScript interfaces about grats HOT 2 CLOSED

initial thought here, in this way of defining types, would we want to assume that all fields in an interface would be exposed implicitly? Instead of having to explicitly specify each with the GQLField JSDoc, I could see a point for making types and interfaces being the fields we want to expose as a type.

This is just to trigger the discussion, not necessarily to make the decision as part of this ticket.

from grats.

I think it makes sense for fields to always be opt-in. My view is that most systems probably already have classes/types that model their various graphql types. Rather than asking them to define new types just to expose them in GraphQL, they should be able to annotate their existing types, opting in only the fields that make sense to be public, and renaming types/fields to public facing names as they go.

from grats.