On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 10:11:17 +0200, Balazs Ree
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The other morale of the story is that I reacted to Florian a little angry
when he said straight "you are obviously doing something wrong there"
before he knew what actually happens, and although I was not aware of the
real case either I apologize for my misreaction openly and thank to
Florian for spending his valuable time on this.
I didn't point to you, but to the change which caused the problems. It
just happens that you added that line and I found it by binary searching
for breakage by date. That the line itself was innocent was another thing.
I just wanted to give a fix for people so they can work normally on
template improvements. I'm sorry if it sounded like I blame you
specifically. That wasn't the intention.
The mail I got from you sounded more frustrated than angry and you made
that clear at the top, so you just vented a bit :)
Now to point 1. Why do we need this service view at all? On some hand it
is true that this is kind of testing -but it is not analogue to our
unittests. We have no way of activating this code from the tests and let
it disactivated by production run, because at the moment the selenium
tests are manual and the site for them must be created manually too. If
we leave the config uncommented, it will be troublesome for (some) people
to comment it back, there will be a constant danger of an accidental
commit back, plus really at this moment we only use 3.0 for development/
testing and not production. So imo a "sevice view" that will not be
accidentally invoked, can only run by the admin by url, but that yet is
widely available, is an acceptable solution for this.
However Wiggy suggested that we take this out from being a view and make
it as a GS extension profile. This is something I like better then the
view. However in this case some people may complain that every time you
create a plone site, you will see "create selenium testsite" in the list
of extensions. If this is acceptable I'd go for it but it would be good
to discuss this in advance.
In any case I believe it is important that before we find a way to hide
this functionality from production (well, the view is kind of hidden now)
we leave it on by default, because we must encourage people to run
selenium tests and make it as easy as possible to start.
The view is actually ok IMO based on the need you outlined. It's only
available to site managers and not publically visible. I think it's
similar to the test_ecmascripts.pt, no one in the public knows it, so no
one takes offence :)
I'm +1 on keeping the view to make it easy to run the tests in browsers.
That's important IMO. We need to be able to tell people "go to this url
and see if you get any failures".
Regards,
Florian Schulze
_______________________________________________
Framework-Team mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.plone.org/mailman/listinfo/framework-team
