Add required fields

[djc]

From schi...@gmail.com on June 12, 2008 05:43:28

It would be helpful to be able to programmatically add some constraints to
Couchdb data. The Python schema classes provide a nice place to do this.

Attached is a patch that adds an optional "required" parameter to fields.
When set to True, all instances must be created with a value for that field
(whether loaded from a database or created manually). When created manually
the initial value must be passed during construction. This also works with
default values as you would expect.

If this patch (or something like it) is accepted I'll also create a similar
patch that lets you specify an "options" parameter for fields that will
constrain values to only those values.

Attachment: schema.diff

Original issue: http://code.google.com/p/couchdb-python/issues/detail?id=15

[djc]

From schi...@gmail.com on June 11, 2008 20:51:23

Oh, and this patch requires the patch I submitted in bug #14 . I found the problem
explained in bug #14 while working on this feature.

[djc]

From gdam...@gmail.com on September 10, 2008 04:37:46

isn't validation planned for the CouchDB server itself. Then a second validation
would add confusion I think.

[djc]

From crack...@gmail.com on December 16, 2008 16:03:48

Also, validation isn't really the job of the DB access library. I think it's more
pertinent if you either a) talk to the guys over at CouchDB about this, or b) write a
layer on top of CouchDB/Python which affords things like schema and validation (which
defeat the point of using CouchDB entirely).

[djc]

From schi...@gmail.com on December 16, 2008 16:38:12

It would be fine if this was done in CouchDB itself, but there was no sign of that
feature when I submitted this patch.

I strongly disagree that adding validation "defeats the point of CouchDB entirely".
Sure CouchDB lacks a formal schema and is malleable, but that doesn't mean users will
never have a plan for what their data looks like at any given moment. The schema-free
bit just lets people change their mind without major hassles. If having any form or
schema was bad, then you could argue that this entire access library is defeating the
purpose of CouchDB since it has things like typed fields.

[djc]

From djc.ochtman on December 14, 2009 02:30:50

Labels: -Type-Defect Type-Enhancement

[djc]

From DeviantR...@gmail.com on May 21, 2010 09:43:38

This seems related to something I would like to see in couchdb: namespaces.
Although I still see no reason to include any kind of enforcement or validation in the
db itself.

See: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COUCHDB-714

[djc]

From matt.goo...@gmail.com on July 08, 2010 13:46:42

A validate_doc_update function in your design do is the way to do this sort of validation, http://wiki.apache.org/couchdb/Document_Update_Validation . That will work for non-schema (now called mapping) documents too.

Status: WontFix