SERVER-12127 Migrate js tests added recently

2 files changed, 35 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/jstests/core/repair_server12955.js b/jstests/core/repair_server12955.js
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..9582e4c7852
--- /dev/null
+++ b/jstests/core/repair_server12955.js
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+
+mydb = db.getSisterDB( "repair_server12955" );
+mydb.dropDatabase()
+
+mydb.foo.ensureIndex({a:"text"})
+mydb.foo.insert({a:"hello world"})
+
+before = mydb.stats().dataFileVersion;
+
+mydb.repairDatabase();
+
+after = mydb.stats().dataFileVersion;
+
+assert.eq( before, after );
+mydb.dropDatabase();
diff --git a/jstests/core/update_server-12848.js b/jstests/core/update_server-12848.js
new file mode 100644
index 00000000000..f5ee9a8f2fa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/jstests/core/update_server-12848.js
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+// In SERVER-12848, it was shown that validation fails for certain types of updates
+// because the validate code was attempting to validate field names in array. Mutable
+// doesn't offer guarantees about the examined field name of array elements, only of the
+// field name of array elements when serialized. This is a regression test to
+// check that the new validation logic doesn't attempt to validate field names.
+
+var res;
+var t = db.update_server_12848;
+t.drop();
+
+var orig = { "_id" : 1, "a" : [ 1, [ ] ] };
+res = t.insert(orig);
+assert.writeOK(res, "insert");
+assert.eq(orig, t.findOne());
+
+res = t.update({ "_id" : 1 }, { $addToSet : { "a.1" : 1 } });
+assert.writeOK(res, "update");
+
+var updated = { "_id" : 1, "a" : [ 1, [ 1 ] ] };
+assert.eq(updated, t.findOne());