couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Davis <paul.joseph.da...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-1252) A way to have views return _deleted documents
Date Fri, 19 Aug 2011 04:19:20 GMT
I don't think its an issue that the 404 is there. It *is* deleted after all. Though there's
an argument to be made why we don't show the deleted body in the response.

I would say that it should be a view option, but this will get a bit wonky for you. You'll
need to see if *any* of the views have it included and then read the body from disk in the
enum_changes_since loop. After that you'll have to filter it before passing it to the doc
mapper. Also, I'm currently in the middle of rewriting the entire view engine so I wouldn't
go too far if you end up needing to change lots of code.

Also, you can't see them in a view because we've never had the request to write this patch.
It wasn't *too* long ago that it was impossible to see _design docs in a view (and now that's
even off by default).

On Aug 18, 2011, at 11:07 PM, Jason Smith (JIRA) wrote:

> 
>    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1252?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13087509#comment-13087509
] 
> 
> Jason Smith commented on COUCHDB-1252:
> --------------------------------------
> 
> To Damien, I say: well, why can't I see deleted docs in a view? Why do I get a 404 when
I query for them? Because they are deleted. Damien's code contradicts Damien's words, and
the code makes better sense. To expose _deleted documents everywhere is a leaky abstraction.
> 
> However, in the spirit of "design by committee is bad" and to learn a different part
of CouchDB, I would like to write this patch. Paul, should it be a design option or a view
option?
> 
> For example:
> 
> { "_id": "_design/example"
> , "options": { "these_are":"options global to the ddoc", "local_seq":true, "include_deleted":true}
> , "views":
>  { "deleted_docs_A":
>    { "options": {"these_are":"local to this view", "include_design":true, "include_deleted":true}
>    , "map":"function(D) { if(D._deleted) emit(D._id, 1) }"
>    }
>  , "deleted_docs_B":
>    { "options": {"not using include_deleted": true}
>    , "map":"function(D) { if(D._deleted) emit(D._id, 1) /* Does it emit? */ }
>    }
>  }
> }
> 
> With design options, deleted_docs_B will emit, but using view options, it won't. I prefer
it to be per-view. In fact I did not even realize design options existed until I checked the
source.
> 
> Thoughts? Thanks.
> 
>> A way to have views return _deleted documents
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> 
>>                Key: COUCHDB-1252
>>                URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1252
>>            Project: CouchDB
>>         Issue Type: New Feature
>>         Components: JavaScript View Server
>>   Affects Versions: 1.1, 1.0.3
>>           Reporter: James Howe
>> 
>> Given that documents can be 'soft' deleted / deleted with auditing data by updating
the document to include the _deleted property, it would be incredibly useful if there were
a way to access these documents in a map function. Otherwise it is very difficult to find
the auditing data - even more so if the original ids are unknown.
>> I was thinking along the lines of a view query parameter 'include_deleted', but don't
really mind how this is implemented, as long as it is there.
> 
> --
> This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
> For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
> 
> 


Mime
View raw message