[Feature Request] Options to ignore auto conversion id to _id

[kbiits]

Is your feature request related to a problem?

We have a merchant.id field in our mongodb document, and after upgrading to mongodb driver 5.1 we encountered issue that mongodb driver modify the where query from merchant.id to merchant._id which results to unexpected query

Describe the solution you'd like

It would be good if there's mechanism to whitelisting the fields from auto conversion .id to ._id

Describe alternatives you've considered

Additional context

This part of code modify all .id to ._id

[Abdullahbutt3434]

I am looking for the solution here

[Abdullahbutt3434]

**protected $primaryKey = '_id';**
I tried to put above line in model that is not working as well
if we want to go with _id there must a be 
please guide. 

[kbiits]

I am looking for the solution here

What I've done to get rid of the issue is by downgrading the MongoDB driver to version 4.x

[GromNaN]

We have no plan to allow usage of .id fields in embedded documents. For your existing database, you can rename the field with the $rename operator.

DB::collection('products')->raw()->updateMany([], ['$rename' => ['merchant.id' => 'merchant._id']]);

If you need to keep both id and _id fields during update to avoid downtime, you can update in 3 steps:

1. Duplicate the field merchant.id into merchant._id
2. Deploy your code updating laravel-mongodb package
3. Remove merchant.id

[kbiits]

That's too scary since we have a lot of services query the same collection and we don't want to break them.
We can still use the v4 version instead of renaming the field. I hope you guys have the bandwidth to support it in the future.

[katjackson]

I'm also having an issue with this behavior. @GromNaN Would you consider making the aliasIdForQuery method protected, so that it could be overwritten? Renaming the nested id keys in our large code base is just too risky.

[GromNaN]

Could you provide more precision about your data model? Are you using id fields on the main document on only for embedded documents?

[katjackson]

They are in embedded documents. In some places, they are structured as EmbedsMany models on a parent model, and in others, they are just arrays of objects stored on a model.

{
    "_id" : ObjectId(),
    "dynamic_content" : {
        "conditions" : [
            {
                "id" : "32C67020",
                "name" : "Deposit",
                "description" : "Deposited Students",
                "active" : true,
                "rules" : [
                    {
                        "content" : {...},
                        "type" : "user_segment"
                    }
                ]
            },
            {
                "id" : "6FED4F05",
                "name" : "Admit",
                "description" : "Admitted students-Nondeposits",
                "active" : true,
                "index_weight" : NumberInt(2),
                "rules" : [
                    {
                        "content" : {...},
                        "type" : "user_segment"
                    },
                    {
                        "content" : {...},
                        "type" : "date_condition"
                    }
                ]
            }
        ]
    }
}

The changes to alias '_id' in results and queries are incredibly problematic for us. We have almost 200 models in our code base. Our API handles about 3.5 million requests a day to ~1000 endpoints. Changing the structure of the data is not a reasonable option for us.

aliasIdForResult is public, so I was able to overwrite it, to continue returning '_id' alongside 'id'. But because aliasIdForQuery is private, I would need to overwrite toMql, insert, insertGetId, delete, performUpdate, and inheritConnectionOptions in order to change the behavior of aliasIdForQuery so that I can manage those models with nested 'id' values.

[leitommi]

We have no plan to allow usage of .id fields in embedded documents. For your existing database, you can rename the field with the $rename operator.

@GromNaN Is it known why subfields rename from "id" to "_id" happens in the first place? To be clear, I am talking about subfields in document, not the primary key "_id".

Another note, this change should have been in the release notes. Currently there is mentioned only the primary key.

All in all, it is problematic for my project as well and at least opt out would be lifesaver.

[GromNaN]

We plan to add a setting to disable _id conversion for embedded documents.

[leitommi]

We plan to add a setting to disable _id conversion for embedded documents.

It is superb to hear that! Is there a target version in mind as well or any other indication about timeline?