put_internal doesn't skip validation on insert when skip_validation=True

[absassi]

I would like to insert or update an item from internal server code, but the resource is complex and I don't want to replicate all the logic in Eve for timestamps, soft delete, media files, etc. in the application, so I'm trying to use eve.methods.put.put_internal for this. However, some of the fields changed from the server are marked read-only (as the client shouldn't be able to change them), so I want to skip validation (and also because I know the data is valid, so validation is redundant in this case).

Unfortunately, put_internal isn't skipping validation on insert when skip_validation=True, because it simply calls post_internal in eve/methods/put.py:153, but the skip_validation parameter is not forwarded to post_internal.

Of course, there are workarounds:

• Check if the document exists first and then call post_internal directly passing skip_validation=True, but that means two queries in case of updates, because put_internal will make another one anyway.
• Define an internal resource using the same collection as data source, with less strict validation rules and use that resource instead.
• Replicate all the relevant logic from Eve in the application, calling app.data.insert and app.data.replace (or app.data.update) directly.

---

Expected Behavior

Calling put_internal with skip_validation=True should always skip validation.

Actual Behavior

Validation is skipped for updates, but not for inserts.

Environment

• Python version: 3.6
• Eve version: 1.1

[stale]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[absassi]

Yes, this is still relevant.

[stale]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[absassi]

Yes, this is still relevant.

[stale]

Is this still relevant? If so, what is blocking it? Is there anything you can do to help move it forward?

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs.

[absassi]

Yes, this is still relevant.