nickva commented on code in PR #5858:
URL: https://github.com/apache/couchdb/pull/5858#discussion_r3328097969
##########
src/mango/src/mango_native_proc.erl:
##########
@@ -112,14 +112,30 @@ handle_call({prompt, [<<"ddoc">>, DDocId,
[<<"validate_doc_update">>], Args]}, _
Msg = [<<"validate_doc_update">>, DDocId],
{stop, {invalid_call, Msg}, {invalid_call, Msg}, St};
Selector ->
- [NewDoc, OldDoc, _Ctx, _SecObj] = Args,
- Struct = {[{<<"newDoc">>, NewDoc}, {<<"oldDoc">>, OldDoc}]},
- Reply =
- case mango_selector:match(Selector, Struct) of
- true -> true;
- _ -> {[{<<"forbidden">>, <<"document is not valid">>}]}
- end,
- {reply, Reply, St}
+ case mango_selector:has_allowed_fields(Selector, [<<"newDoc">>,
<<"oldDoc">>]) of
+ false ->
+ Msg =
+ <<"'validate_doc_update' may only contain 'newDoc' and
'oldDoc' as top-level fields">>,
Review Comment:
> You are currently allowed to upload a JS design doc with invalid code in
it. Instead, this triggers when normal doc writes occur; if the Mango VDU does
not make sense then we return an error about that, rather than giving the user
a misleading error implying their doc is invalid.
But if we could we would validate the JS VDU during insertion. It's a bit
how we check compilation during ddoc inserts "does it even compile? -if not, we
fail the ddoc insertion to start with". If we can do that early with Mango
VDUs, we should, then we don't have to worry about misleading the user later
because by the virtue of rejecting invalid VDUs we will only have deal with
invalid user documents as all Mango VDU will be valid
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
