[Bug] Not sure how to name this bug - please help out

[rajas (Rajas Vanjape)]

I am able to reproduce this on latest master .

Ideally, as foo is an inverse field of bar, there is no need to explicitly reference it.

The mutation will work perfectly fine and do what is expected if foo : { id: "1231"} is not supplied as a field to bar object.

@maaft

Solutions:

1. Don’t allow a reference to foo when bar is added as a child of foo
   or
2. Don’t throw this error and ignore the ID when it’s set to the same ID as the parent

We can consider solution 2 in which the inverse field will be ignored (foo in this case) will be ignored no matter what is supplied, the same parent or any other parent.