couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Randall Leeds (Commented) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (COUCHDB-1391) Implement _security as _local doc with revision trees
Date Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:49:50 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1391?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13194289#comment-13194289
] 

Randall Leeds commented on COUCHDB-1391:
----------------------------------------

Can you explain couch_db.erl:705? Why did the list brackets appear around the doc? I'm guessing
that's the format new_revs wants.

For couch_db:open_doc_int/3 I would remove the first function clause entirely and then add
a clause to get_doc_infos/2. That cleanly splits the logic at the choice of btree and introduces
less redundant code for us to mess up down the line.

In couch_db_updater:init_db/6 the line "Db1#db{security_ptr=local};" is redundant in the clause
where security_ptr is already the atom local.
Am I right that at these lines update a db as soon as it's opened? I was wondering why I didn't
see more backwards-compatibility code anywhere. Just want to know I've got it right.

couch_db_updater:init_security/2 needs to be fixed to keep the user context intact, I think.
Right now it sets the user context to _admin so it can update the security document but then
returns that modified #db record back to init_db without dropping those privileges. Unless
I misunderstand, that seems wrong.

Any reason why copy_docs can't be changed to take a btree argument? It looks mostly the same
as copy_local_docs.

What's the change in couch_replicator? The second clause doesn't make total sense to me. Is
that to reset the leading number for the rev when the log is migrated to a new ID?

Otherwise, nicely done! Looks great! Thanks.
                
> Implement _security as _local doc with revision trees
> -----------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: COUCHDB-1391
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-1391
>             Project: CouchDB
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: Database Core
>            Reporter: Paul Joseph Davis
>         Attachments: 0001-Refactor-revision-merging.patch, 0002-Replace-_local-doc-sequence-with-revision-trees.patch,
0003-Prevent-multiple-updates-to-a-single-_local-doc.patch, 0004-Implement-_security-as-a-_local-doc.patch
>
>
> We had a discussion [1] a while back about updating the _security object so that it could
be replicated (internally) in a cluster or similar environment. The basic gist was "update
_local docs to have a revision tree, update _security to be a _local doc with docid "_local/_security"
and keep the current _security API for a version or two for backwards compatibility (or forever,
what color is your bike shed?)"
> So I did that.
> Basic patch progression is:
> 1. Refactor revision merging logic so that we can split it out of couch_db_updater's
code path for updating normal docs.
> 2. Implement _local docs with #full_doc_info{} records (and thus revision trees)
> 3. Implement _security as _local/_security
> These things are done. Tests should theoretically pass after each patch but I haven't
gone back and tried. They definitely pass (minus auth_cache which I just submitted a fix for)
now except for replication.js appears to fail for random reasons. I can't quite decide if
I've introduced this or if it just fails randomly. Rather than run it a lot more times and
continue to be confused I'm starting this ticket so I can have other people test and tell
me their results.
> Also, the test suite is rather wonky on trunk with segfaults. We should really look into
that more.
> Patches forth coming. I've also pushed the branch to [2].
> [1] http://grokbase.com/t/couchdb.apache.org/dev/2011/08/the-security-object-should-be-versioned/17rfmmtlu3lagqvgyq7cay26dqk4
> [2] http://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=couchdb.git;a=log;h=refs/heads/new-security-object

--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators: https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira

        

Mime
View raw message