During one of our framework scripts, we perform revoke operations on some views from different product areas in our application which had already been granted. There we noticed that, if a view is invalid due to some reason, the revoke operation errors out.

Problem we have in simple is:
It is not possible to revoke a grant on an invalid view from a role.

Test Case: (not the exact test case, but a simple one which expresses exaclty the same problem)
1. Create view MIDDLE_VIEW
- CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW MIDDLE_VIEW AS SELECT 1 as ONE FROM DUAL;

2. Create view FINAL_VIEW using MIDDLE_VIEW
- CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW FINAL_VIEW AS SELECT 1 as ONE FROM MIDDLE_VIEW;

3. Create role MY_ROLE
- CREATE ROLE MY_ROLE;

4. Grant FINAL_VIEW to MY_ROLE
- GRANT SELECT ON FINAL_VIEW TO MY_ROLE;

5. Drop MIDDLE_VIEW so that FINAL_VIEW become invalid
- DROP VIEW MIDDLE_VIEW;

6. Now try to revoke FINAL_VIEW from MY_ROLE
- REVOKE SELECT ON FINAL_VIEW FROM MY_ROLE;
Below error is raised:
ORA-04063: view "FINAL_VIEW" has errors


SELECT OBJECT_NAME, OBJECT_ID, OBJECT_TYPE, LAST_DDL_TIME, STATUS, TEMPORARY FROM SYS.USER_OBJECTS
WHERE OBJECT_NAME = 'FINAL_VIEW';

OBJECT_NAME OBJECT_ID OBJECT_TYPE LAST_DDL_TIME STATUS TEMPORARY
------------- --------- ------------ --------------- --------------------
FINAL_VIEW 1439956 VIEW 3/21/2017 2:13:23 PM INVALID N


SELECT * FROM SYS.ROLE_TAB_PRIVS
WHERE ROLE = 'MY_ROLE';

ROLE OWNER TABLE_NAME COLUMN_NAME PRIVILEGE GRANTABLE COMMON
MY_ROLE IFSAPP FINAL_VIEW SELECT NO N

According to the above to queries, at this time, both the Oracle Object FINAL_VIEW exists (even though it is invalid) & its grant to role MY_ROLE exists.

So I wonder why Oracle errors out here as being invalid has nothing to do with the revoke operation. Instead, it should revoke the grant.

In our application, at the point of this revoke operation, as the framework, it is not possible for us to find the cause of the invalidation or to make the view valid thus this is a real problem for us.

Is there any special reason why Oracle handles this way or is there a possible bug?