Quick lazy Google question let s say `FooQuery` fetches list

Question

Quick lazy Google question let s say `FooQuery` fetches list of items ` a b c ` with `ID`s normalized so the items have their own entries in the cache If I manually remove an item from the cache using `apolloClient apolloStore remove CacheKey itemId cascade = false ` should I expect `FooQuery` to a trigger refetcher b emit `null` while `b` is missing in the cache and re emit non null value only when `b` is fetched either by refetcher or some other query

mbonnin · Answer

`remove ` doesn t publish by default so you d at least have to call `publish setOf a b c `

mbonnin · Answer

If you call `publish ` the refetcher will be called and try to fetch according to refetchPolicy

mbonnin · Answer

Whether it emits `null` or `throws` depends a bunch of factors like the `refetchThrows` parameter you ve passed and or whether you re on 3 x or 4 x

wasyl · Answer

ah perfect yeah the emission is less of an issue I was surprised about the publishing

wasyl · Answer

Though I m not sure how I can publish what I want thinking face In the method to remove an item I don t know which queries depend on that item Does ```apolloClient apolloStore remove CacheKey contentId cascade = false apolloClient apolloStore publish setOf contentId ``` make sense or the `publish` wouldn t do anything in such case

mbonnin · Answer

As long as `cascade` is `false` that should be alright But there s definitely a blind spot if `cascade` is `true`

wasyl · Answer

Right because we d need to publish all cascaded deletions too brain Perfect that clears things up thank you slightly smiling face

mbonnin · Answer

Thanks for raising this

mbonnin · Answer

Filed this for tracking <https github com apollographql apollo kotlin issues 4974>

wasyl · Answer

bow thanks just for clarity this is not an issue for us we use `cascade=false` and frankly I d love to get rid of manipulating cache manually in the first place only for reasons we can t do that But the issue looks valid anyway as the current behavior is just surprising because observing cache for the same query twice can yield different results if you do observe delete item observe