SyncGateway : What should happen when a user gets access to a new channel with a continuous replication running?

[Jakob Hoydis]

Hi,

We have the following situation:

- User 1 is running a continuous replication with CBLite on SyncGateway

- There is a document 'A' which belongs to channel 'CHN_A'. The user does not have access to the document yet.

- Document B is written to the database which will give User 1 access to CHN_A.  

What we observe is that document 'A' will not get replicated to User 1 until it has changed (revision number increase) or we restart the replication from the beginning on an empty CBLite.

Therefore the question: Is this the correct behavior? I would expect that the replication would fetch document 'A' directly (even though it did not change) simply because it is not present in CBLite.

For your information, we are using TiTouchDb and do not know if this problem results from this plugin or from SyncGateway/CBLite.

Thanks,

Jakob

[ajres]

@Jakob

Which versions of sync_gateway and CBLite (or TiTouchDB) are you running?

Andy

[Jakob Hoydis]

Oh, sorry. I forgot to add this.

We are running:

- Couchbase Sync Gateway/1.00 (1.0.0-23; commit abbfd465)

- TiTouchDb 1.1.0

- Couchbase Mobile 1.0.2

Jakob

[ajres]

@Jacob

There have been some major changes in the the way sync_gateway handles channel changes and reports them in the changes feed.

You might want to build sync_gateway from source and retest, hopefully that should resolve your issue.

Andy

[Jakob Hoydis]

Thanks for the quick reply. So, coming back to my initial question, the behavior we observe is not correct and the document should get replicated?

Jakob

On Friday, October 17, 2014 3:01:50 PM UTC+2, Jakob Hoydis wrote:

[Jens Alfke]

On Oct 17, 2014, at 6:54 AM, Jakob Hoydis <ja...@spraed.net> wrote:

Thanks for the quick reply. So, coming back to my initial question, the behavior we observe is not correct and the document should get replicated?

You're running an obsolete Sync Gateway (1.0). The current version is 1.0.2, which fixes the problem you described.

—Jens

[Jakob Hoydis]

Great thanks. I will give it a try.

Jakob

On Friday, October 17, 2014 3:01:50 PM UTC+2, Jakob Hoydis wrote: