[SERVER-6637] Make find(...).remove() work Created: 29/Jul/12 Updated: 17/Jul/20 Resolved: 17/Jul/20 |
|
| Status: | Closed |
| Project: | Core Server |
| Component/s: | Shell |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | New Feature | Priority: | Minor - P4 |
| Reporter: | David K. Storrs | Assignee: | DO NOT USE - Backlog - Platform Team |
| Resolution: | Won't Do | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Participants: |
| Description |
|
I frequently find myself repeating this workflow:
It would be convenient if I could simply append '.remove()' to the end of the cursor and have it understand what that means. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Jessica Sigafoos [ 17/Jul/20 ] | ||
|
This is usecase is not being prioritized in the new shell implementation. | ||
| Comment by David K. Storrs [ 07/Aug/12 ] | ||
|
Why is this not possible? Have a cursor+remove reduce to a series of Dave On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 6:50 AM, Scott Hernandez (JIRA) | ||
| Comment by Scott Hernandez (Inactive) [ 29/Jul/12 ] | ||
|
David, there are many options you can use on a cursor (find) which aren't possible with remove so it may be a little mislead, and confusing to allow this construction. It would make more sense if other features were implemented first, like allowing a limit/skip on remove: SERVER-4796
Do you return an error from remove, or just ignore the sort/limit – and then when sort/limit is supported on the server should the client detect that the server supports that or be limited by the code in the client version? |