Thank you Jan & ermouth for the fast replies. Thought it's a feature I shouldn't rely to solve the issue.
I found a more obvious solution to prevent unintended edits: vdu checks whether the current _rev is repeated in the doc as a validation token. At least it prevents mindless editing via the admin interface, that's good enough for my case. regards, Stefan Klein Am Mi., 26. Mai 2021 um 11:02 Uhr schrieb ermouth <[email protected]>: > > Or can I? > > You better not unless you clearly understand how it works and what it > depends on. However if you do, this bizzare feature can be invaluable for > ie a sort of volatile cache, or (with a certain config) for altering params > of a running filtered replication. > > Anyway, those tricks are very far from being conventional: they are nice to > play with, but are no good for production. > > ermouth > > > ср, 26 мая 2021 г. в 11:17, Stefan Klein <[email protected]>: > > > Hi all, > > > > i'm trying to prevent unintended changes to some documents. > > > > While toying around with update & validate_doc_update functions, I found > > that, if i add a property to the `this` context of an update function, > the > > `this` context of the validate_doc_update running after the update > contains > > that property. > > > > If I understand the couchdb & query server architecture correct I can not > > rely on this behavior. Or can I? > > > > Thanks & regards, > > Stefan Klein > > >
