Open mpowaga opened 7 years ago
test.direct.update
Or do you only want to circumventing before and not after for example?
Suppose you have two hooks A and B. Direct access will circumvent hooks A and B. In some cases you may want to circumvent only hook A but still run hook B.
To my knowledge this isn't supported. One way to achieve it is to store the handler you get when adding a hook and use that to remove the hook before performing the action and after it's done add the hook once more and save the new handler.
Shouldn't this be supported? I think it's pretty common use case. I'd happily send a PR for this.
Let's talk through a possible implementation before the PR?
Sure. See my proposed API at the top.
Another solution would be to use reference instead of string, e.g.
const resizeImages = test.before.update(function (userId, doc, fieldNames, modifier, options) {
// ...
});
test.withoutHooks(resizeImages).update({_id: "test"}, {$set: {test: 1}})
Today when when you do
const beforeInsertPostsHandler = Posts.before.insert((...) => ...);
You get the handler which is an object with remove
and replace
, maybe we could add collection
/direct
here and one could then use the beforeInsertPostsHandler.direct.insert(...)
to run the insert without this hook.
Edit: this way we don't "pollute" the collection prototype even more.
Would test.direct.withoutHooks(resizeImages).update(...)
be possible? I think it's more explicit. Also that would allow to disable many hooks at the same time.
Maybe we can support .direct(options)
, it would be a "breaking" change but there are other potentially breaking changes in 0.9.0-rc4
so I'm thinking it's fine as long as we document the change.
Is there a way to circumvent specific hooks? For example: