Fix getDocument silently dropping a single string fields value by soroush5 · Pull Request #2236 · meilisearch/meilisearch-js

soroush5 · 2026-09-11T11:19:02Z

DocumentQuery.fields accepts an array of field names or a single field name, but getDocument only forwarded the array form. Passing a string (for example { fields: "title" }) replaced it with undefined, so the fields query parameter never reached the server and the full document came back instead of the selected field.

This change passes a string value through as-is and keeps joining arrays. Adds mocked-fetch tests covering the string form, the array form, and the omitted case.

Summary by CodeRabbit

Bug Fixes
- Fixed document retrieval so string-based field selections are correctly passed through and honored.
- Document responses now return the requested fields, helping prevent unrequested data from being included.
Tests
- Added coverage for retrieving a document with a single field specified as a string.
- Verified that requesting the title field returns the expected title value.

coderabbitai · 2026-09-11T11:19:16Z

No actionable comments were generated in the recent review. 🎉

ℹ️ Recent review info

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 6f4f8760-4208-488d-8681-0977f1ca5727

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between db3f557 and 6b748a6.

📒 Files selected for processing (2)

src/indexes.ts
tests/documents.test.ts

Included review availability: Your plan provides up to 4 included reviews per hour; 3 remain after this review.

📝 Walkthrough

Walkthrough

getDocument now forwards string fields values. A test verifies that string field selection returns title and omits id.

Changes

Document fields query handling

Layer / File(s)	Summary
Fields query serialization `src/indexes.ts`, `tests/documents.test.ts`	`getDocument` passes non-array `fields` values through to the query. The test covers string field selection and verifies the returned document fields.

Priority: ⬇️ Low

Estimated code review effort: 1 (Trivial) | ~5 minutes

Change: Bug fix

Suggested reviewers: strift

Merge Risk: ⚪ Minimal · up to 6b748

The change preserves string and array field selections, with corresponding test coverage, and is ready to merge.

🚥 Pre-merge checks | ✅ 4 | ❌ 1

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Check name	Status	Explanation	Resolution
Docstring Coverage	⚠️ Warning	Docstring coverage is 0.00% which is insufficient. The required threshold is 80.00%. Docstring coverage is scoped to functions touched by this diff. Analyzed 1 functions across 3 files.	Write docstrings for the functions missing them to satisfy the coverage threshold.

✅ Passed checks (4 passed)

Check name	Status	Explanation
Description Check	✅ Passed	Check skipped - CodeRabbit’s high-level summary is enabled.
Title check	✅ Passed	The title clearly and concisely describes the main change: preserving a single string value for `getDocument` fields.
Linked Issues check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.
Out of Scope Changes check	✅ Passed	Check skipped because no linked issues were found for this pull request.

Fix all pre-merge checks with AI

✨ Finishing Touches

🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)

Create PR with unit tests

Warning

Git: CodeRabbit could not clone the repository, so clone-backed analysis was skipped and this review may be incomplete. Verify repository clone access, such as SSH credentials, before requesting another full review. If clone access is intentionally unavailable, use path_filters to narrow the review scope.

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

codecov · 2026-09-11T11:22:14Z

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.15%. Comparing base (b738892) to head (6b748a6).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2236   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.15%   98.15%           
=======================================
  Files          14       14           
  Lines         706      706           
  Branches      107      106    -1     
=======================================
  Hits          693      693           
  Misses         12       12           
  Partials        1        1

☔ View full report in Codecov by Harness.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

Strift

thanks for yet another bug fix @soroush5 🙌

DocumentQuery.fields accepts an array or a single field name, but getDocument only forwarded the array form. A string was replaced with undefined, so the fields query parameter never reached the server and the full document came back instead of the requested field.

Strift added the bug Something isn't working label Sep 16, 2026

Strift approved these changes Sep 16, 2026

View reviewed changes

Strift enabled auto-merge September 16, 2026 05:58

Strift added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 16, 2026

github-merge-queue Bot removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a conflict with the base branch Sep 16, 2026

soroush5 and others added 2 commits September 16, 2026 16:45

test: move getDocument string fields coverage into documents.test.ts

6b748a6

Strift force-pushed the fix/get-document-string-fields branch from db3f557 to 6b748a6 Compare September 16, 2026 08:46

Strift added this pull request to the merge queue Sep 16, 2026

Merged via the queue into meilisearch:main with commit df74c19 Sep 16, 2026
8 checks passed

Navigation Menu

Fix getDocument silently dropping a single string fields value - #2236

Fix getDocument silently dropping a single string fields value#2236
Strift merged 2 commits into
meilisearch:mainfrom
soroush5:fix/get-document-string-fields

soroush5 commented Sep 11, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Walkthrough

Changes

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

Uh oh!

Strift left a comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

Conversation

soroush5 commented Sep 11, 2026 • edited by coderabbitai Bot Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Summary by CodeRabbit

Uh oh!

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Walkthrough

Changes

❌ Failed checks (1 warning)

Uh oh!

codecov Bot commented Sep 11, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Codecov Report

Uh oh!

Strift left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

2 participants

soroush5 commented Sep 11, 2026 •

edited by coderabbitai Bot

Loading

coderabbitai Bot commented Sep 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading

codecov Bot commented Sep 11, 2026 •

edited

Loading