[Zope-CMF] Re: [dev] characters allowed in content IDs
yuppie wrote at 2006-3-21 21:12 +0100: >> There was a clear result: make the id checker policy configurable -- >> as Zope 3 does. > >Well. That's right but doesn't help us much. We don't have a volunteer >for implementing that new feature. And we don't have a consensus what >the default policy should be. If the policy were pluggable, I think that nobody would object to follow your proposal to use the Zope3 default. > ... >Why should I make it configurable? Because it would be the right way to do it and because it seems to be the prefered solution by the community. >I volunteer to fix a serious bug by >restoring behavior we had until 6 months ago. An INameChooser based >configurable solution would be much more work than just fixing the bug. > >> The same arguments apply in CMF land as in Zope land. > >You deleted the sentence in which I said what's different IMHO: > >> In CMF we plan to use views by default and it's quite common that normal >> site members are allowed to add content items. > >So it's more urgent to fix the bug in CMF than in Zope. I would prefer a mechanism as the current CMF uses it: Prevent the creation of a content object only when it really conflicts with something. Or at least, prevent only ids starting with "@@" or "++" (as these are the prefixes really used by Zope 3, right?). As mentioned in "zope-dev", I am primarily concerned with WebDAV integration. And our WebDAV using projects are in fact CMF based. On the other hand, if I am the only objector, do what you propose. I am able to change it in our Zope version to fit our needs. -- Dieter ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-CMF] Fighting the Zope 2.9 testrunner
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 06:25:41PM +0100, Martijn Faassen wrote: > Anyway, a release and the development situation looking similar helps > people actually work on the same codebase and structure, and not having > to learn different ways of doing things as soon as they switch. Forcing > context switches on people isn't a good idea. +1 -- Paul Winkler http://www.slinkp.com ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope3-dev] Re: [Zope-CMF] Fighting the Zope 2.9 testrunner
Jim Fulton wrote:
From the old testrunner, which I miss *a lot*, I could ensure I am
indeed running a specific module by doing...
Yup, this is one of the things I like least from the Zope 3 world.
What happened to proposals and community agreement before inflicting
big changes on other people who're trying to help out?
Oh cut the crap.
Hmm, I'm confused by this. If there's a proposal, my bad, point me at
it. If there isn't, well, it's kinda odd to receive abuse for pointing
out that you aren't sticking to your own processes...
The new test runner tries very hard to be backward
compatible.
...but misses one of the most common use cases from the old one, and you
didn't seem particularly fussed about fixing this :-S
This breakage was not intentional. It was a bug. There is an
easy work around: just use the -m option.
It can't be that hard to put in some syntactic sugar to support this. I
was going to give it a shot myself but I ran out of time, and I worry
about things like the regex matching the old testrunner used to dowhen
using the missing option.
I particularly hate the fact that no real effort was put into
backwards compatibility, not to mention those silly weird
sort-of-fifty-dots-per-line thing that doesn't actually work.
What the heck are you talking about? What doesn't work?
Here's a literal screen dump:
C:\Zope\2.9i>C:\Zope\2.9.1\bin\python.exe C:\Zope\2.9.1\bin\test.py
--config-file C:\Zope\2.9i\etc\zope.conf --keepbytecode
Parsing C:\Zope\2.9i\etc\zope.conf
Running tests at level 1
Running unit tests:
Running:
.C:\Zope\2.9.1\lib\python\OFS\Application.py:598:DeprecationWarning:
The zLOG package is deprecated and will be removed in Zope 2.11. Use the
Python logging module instead.
('New disk product detected, determining if we need '
.
.
Ran 63 tests with 0 failures and 0 errors in 6.009 seconds.
C:\Zope\2.9i>
It looks bizarre having that carriage return in the middle of the row of
dots. What's the point of the change that Tres added his patch to avoid
seeing?
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Fighting the Zope 2.9 testrunner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 What's really depressing about this is that we are spending so much energy and angst over the layout of dots. That's probably because it is perceived as "yet another thing that has randomly changed/was broken fin 2.9". The "energy and angst" is really about a whole category of changes that did not improve anything in 2.9, and in some cases broke behavior. There is a perception that things were pushed into 2.9 from Zope 3 which changed/broke existing behaviors, and a perception that complaints about this breakage seems to have little or no priority with the people who pushed the code into 2.9. What the heck are you talking about? What doesn't work? Zope 2.9 broke the 'confiugre-make' dance in several ways, due (I think) What does that have to do with the test runner? It is in that lamented category of changes in 2.9. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEIWXbRAx5nvEhZLIRAuCyAKCXZTNqXrJrj01ZGBQB7mHuB+kwpQCgs9NA JMAnmeQOjC1LQlUNh9B4Xyc= =V1Ag -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
Re: [Zope-CMF] Fighting the Zope 2.9 testrunner
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 22 Mar 2006, at 06:15, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: I still don't understand why people whine about "make install" being gone. The point of a checkout is that you have a full functional SVN working copy, not an installation source. If you want to install things, use a TGZ archive which lets you do "make install" perfectly fine. I've never installed Zope anywhere except on production servers anyway, and there you should obviously use releases. If you absolutely must use "make install" from a checkout (perhaps because you want to install the trunk somewhere), then you can make a TGZ first using zpkg. Though I still don't see the point of it. This is just like Stefan Richter's continuing arguments against things "he just doesn't use", thus they must be useless. It doesn't wash. The configure/make/make install dance was the canonical and quick way to install from a checkout _or_ a tarball for years. This should not break, period, whether you're talking about a tarball or a checkout. How can you even do development work when you never install Zope except for on a production server, I don't get it. What "the point of a checkout" is should be left up to the individual user, by the way. With Zope before 2.9 I get both worlds: It is a pristine SVN working copy, and with the ability to run configure/make/ make install in a *separate* directory without leaving any artifacts in the source tree, it acted as a perfect installation source at the same time. Unfortunately that use case, installing from the source tree into a different place, was broken in 2.9 as well and I sorely miss it. Now I have to copy the whole source tree to the other place before running configure/make and then futz around to get the equivalenet of the broken make install. Extremely annoying. jens -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEIRwPRAx5nvEhZLIRAkFbAKCO4NJrXJbnRbTHClssCD3oA3pNpACgjAog CukwEUhM6ZIWPW3f9U/q0jU= =HUtg -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
[Zope-CMF] CMF Collector: Open Issues
The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector (http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF). Assigned and Open jens - "CachingPolicyManager: Make Max-Age parameter dynamic", [Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/405 mhammond - "Windows DevelopmentMode penalty in CMFCore.DirectoryView", [Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/366 Pending / Deferred Issues - "Wrong cache association for FSObject", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/255 - "CMFSetup: Windows exports contain CR/LF, LF and even CR newlines", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/266 - "FSPropertiesObject.py cannot handle multiline input for lines, text attributes", [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/271 - "Can't invalidate skin items in a RAMCacheManager", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/343 - "CMFSetup: Workflow Tool export fails with workflows which have scripts", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/373 - "CMFCore.Skinnable.SkinnableObjectManager can merge skin data", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/375 - "Proxy Roles does't work for a Script using portal_catalog.searchResults", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/380 - "WorkflowAction deprecated warning should not printed for WorkflowMethod", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/388 - "workflow notify success should be after reindex", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/389 - "Content in Setup gets Cleared (Content Import Handler)", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/404 - "index_html manage_workspace and view error", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/406 - "workflow interface out of date on 1.5 branch", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/407 Pending / Deferred Features - "Favorite.py: queries and anchors in remote_url", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/26 - "DefaultDublinCore should have Creator property", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/61 - "path criteria on Topic should honor VHM", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/111 - "Document.py: universal newlines", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/174 - "Add condition for transition's action like other action", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/207 - "Major action enhancement", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/232 - "portal_type is undefined in initialization code", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/248 - "CMFTopic Does Not Cache", [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/295 - "Wishlist: a flag that tags the selected action.", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/301 - "CMFDefault should make use of allowCreate()", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/340 - "Nested Skins", [Deferred] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/377 - "CatalogVariableProvider code + tests", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/378 - "manage_doCustomize() : minor additions", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/382 - "First Day of Week", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/400 - "CachingPolicyManager: Support OFS.Cache.CacheManager", [Pending] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/408 ___ Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf See http://collector.zope.org/CMF for bug reports and feature requests
