Re: [Zope-dev] traversal: different with and without a request
El 17 Oct 2008, a las 10:37 , Christian Theune escribió: There is a process that actually needs the request and this process is what I call traversal: breaking down a URL and finding a publishable object. zope.traversing has (almost) nothing to do with it, the real kind of traversal happens in the publisher and facilitates IPublishTraverse adapters (rather than ITraversable). The only case when the two kinds of traversal are intermingled is when ++namespaces+ + are involved. Then IPublishTraverse-style traversal uses ITraversable adapters. This has long been considered a mistake but was never fixed. URL traversal makes use of zope.traversing though. Yes, but only in the special case of ++namespace++ traversal. This is what I said in the above paragraph already. zope.publisher itself doesn't depend on zope.traversing and the default publication implementation in zope.app.publication uses zope.traversing only for + +namespace++ names (see usage of zope.traversing.namespace.nsParse in zope .app.publication.publicationtraverse.PublicationTraverse.traverseName). ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 5 OK
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Oct 16 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Fri Oct 17 11:00:00 2008 UTC. There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 16 20:50:58 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010325.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 16 20:52:28 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010326.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 16 20:53:59 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010327.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 16 20:55:29 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010328.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Oct 16 20:56:59 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-October/010329.html ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] traversal: different with and without a request
On Oct 15, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: Christian Theune wrote: we stumbled over an annoyance that took a while to debug: Writing an ITraversable, we used zope.traversing.api.traverse() in a test to verify our code. We registered the ITraversable as an (non-multi) adapter and ended up with a working test. In the actual system, we found that the traversable would not be used. After investigation we found a conditional branch in the traverse() function which would look for a multi-adapter if a request was around, and a regular adapter if not. We didn't anticipate this difference and it cost us some time, so we wonder whether this has to be the way it is, or whether this could be changed to behave more obvious and consistent. zope.traversing is a mess. That's a bit strong, but essentially true. It zope.traversing deserves to be reworked if anyone has the time and energy. First of all, its name is quite misleading. It should really be called 'zope.resolvepath' because it resolves TALES-like object paths. In fact, it's pretty much only used by the PageTemplate machinery to hook it up to the TALES engine (with one exception, see below). Historical note. Until we decided to use the location framework and eschew traversal proxies, is was much more widely used. It would be nice to deprecate zope.traversing and fold it into zope.app.pagetemplate. The request shouldn't really be necessary for this kind of path resolution, I think. It's needed for looking up views and resources, both of which are commonly looked up in ZPT. The conditional multi-adaption sounds like a DWIM feature that I would consider one of our many mistakes that we made in the beginnings of our using the Component Architecture. shrug / I'll note that the fix, in the context of ZPT is to always to a multi- adapter lookup using the request. There is a process that actually needs the request and this process is what I call traversal: breaking down a URL and finding a publishable object. zope.traversing has (almost) nothing to do with it, the real kind of traversal happens in the publisher and facilitates IPublishTraverse adapters (rather than ITraversable). Yup. The only case when the two kinds of traversal are intermingled is when ++namespaces++ are involved. Then IPublishTraverse-style traversal uses ITraversable adapters. This has long been considered a mistake but was never fixed. Yup. I would go so far as to call it a bug. Somebody please fix it. :) Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] traversal: different with and without a request
El 17 Oct 2008, a las 15:02 , Jim Fulton escribió: First of all, its name is quite misleading. It should really be called 'zope.resolvepath' because it resolves TALES-like object paths. In fact, it's pretty much only used by the PageTemplate machinery to hook it up to the TALES engine (with one exception, see below). Historical note. Until we decided to use the location framework and eschew traversal proxies, is was much more widely used. It would be nice to deprecate zope.traversing and fold it into zope.app.pagetemplate. +1 The request shouldn't really be necessary for this kind of path resolution, I think. It's needed for looking up views and resources, both of which are commonly looked up in ZPT. Yeah, I forgot about that. The conditional multi-adaption sounds like a DWIM feature that I would consider one of our many mistakes that we made in the beginnings of our using the Component Architecture. shrug / I'll note that the fix, in the context of ZPT is to always to a multi-adapter lookup using the request. Right. I'm fine with it always being a multi-adapter look-up. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] ForbiddenAttribute: why subclass AttributeError?
On 2008-10-15 17:49:30 +0200, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Why is a ForbiddenAttribute also an AttributeError? Is this intended to avoid 'information leaks'? We found a nasty side-effect together with getattr and annotations: a user that didn't have read-access to __annotations__ would end up trying to create the annotations container again and again because getattr(obj '__annotations__', None) would return None instead of propagating the ForbiddenAttribute exception. On a proxied object you'd never get an AttributeError but only ForbidenAttribute, wouldn't you? So I think an ForbiddenAttribute as subclass of AttributeError is the right thing. -- Christian Zagrodnick · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 4 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] zope.testbrowser: Newlines in textarea not always preserved
Hi, a few weeks ago I posted a bug regarding zope.testbrowser: https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope3/+bug/268139 »When there is XML or HTML-Code in the Textarea the newlines are removed.« Could anybody give me a hint how to fix it? I'd really apprechiate it because it prevents me from using Python 2.5 :) Regards, -- Christian Zagrodnick · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 4 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Double usage of vocabulary in z3c.form seems to fail
Hi,
I currently have two schema.Choice() fields in my z3c.form - based form, that
references the same vocabulary.
runjobs = Choice(
title = u'Job',
vocabulary=('cronjobsVocabulary'),
required = False)
cronjobs = Choice(
title = u'Periodic Jobs',
vocabulary=('cronjobsVocabulary'),
required = False)
However, when trying to get data from this field in my ActionHandler, strange
things happen: It seems that one choice field conflicts with the other,
especially it seems, that only one field is used.
Any clue why?
How can I solve that - perhaps I should register the same vocabulary a second
time under a different name?
Best Regards,
Hermann
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers)
FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9 4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg Changed the generated test script to use a part-local tmp directory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Log message for revision 92293:
Changed the generated test script to use a part-local tmp directory
that is cleaned up at the start of a test run.
Unfortunately, the ZODB tests leave lots of temporary files behind
which can cause failures in subsequent test runs and which tend to
litter /tmp. Eventually, I want to clean that up, but, in the mean
time, I can limit the damage to the test part directory.
Changed:
U ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg
-=-
Modified: ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg
===
--- ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg 2008-10-17 12:46:34 UTC (rev 92292)
+++ ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg 2008-10-17 14:02:39 UTC (rev 92293)
@@ -6,6 +6,11 @@
[test]
recipe = zc.recipe.testrunner
eggs = ZODB3
+initialization =
+ import os, tempfile, shutil
+ if os.path.exists('tmp'): shutil.rmtree('tmp')
+ os.mkdir('tmp')
+ tempfile.tempdir = os.path.abspath('tmp')
[scripts]
recipe = zc.recipe.egg
Maybe zc.recipe.testrunner could add support for a 'finalization' or
'cleanup' argument which would do the same think as the 'initialization'
(or maybe only if there were no failures?)
Tres.
- --
===
Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFI+L+Y+gerLs4ltQ4RAgtjAKClCd+fCX0zjCPZD944HDJ/Tp2ZxwCgmVHM
0IMF4ykSw9OKP0ICgwPCNfg=
=+qlo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg Changed the generated test script to use a part-local tmp directory
On Oct 17, 2008, at 12:38 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jim Fulton wrote:
Log message for revision 92293:
Changed the generated test script to use a part-local tmp directory
that is cleaned up at the start of a test run.
Unfortunately, the ZODB tests leave lots of temporary files behind
which can cause failures in subsequent test runs and which tend to
litter /tmp. Eventually, I want to clean that up, but, in the mean
time, I can limit the damage to the test part directory.
Changed:
U ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg
-=-
Modified: ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg
===
--- ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg 2008-10-17 12:46:34 UTC (rev 92292)
+++ ZODB/trunk/buildout.cfg 2008-10-17 14:02:39 UTC (rev 92293)
@@ -6,6 +6,11 @@
[test]
recipe = zc.recipe.testrunner
eggs = ZODB3
+initialization =
+ import os, tempfile, shutil
+ if os.path.exists('tmp'): shutil.rmtree('tmp')
+ os.mkdir('tmp')
+ tempfile.tempdir = os.path.abspath('tmp')
[scripts]
recipe = zc.recipe.egg
Maybe zc.recipe.testrunner could add support for a 'finalization' or
'cleanup' argument which would do the same think as the
'initialization'
(or maybe only if there were no failures?)
Yup. That would be good. In the mean time ... :)
It would also be good to have some automated way to check for leaving
temp files behind, much as it now checks for leaving threads behind.
I've got a significant project ahead to fix the ZODB tests to be less
sloppy about the way they manage files, although this initializer hack
buys me some time. :)
Jim
--
Jim Fulton
Zope Corporation
___
Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
** No cross posts or HTML encoding! **
(Related lists -
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] SVN: z3c.relationfield/trunk/buildout.cfg zope.testing somehow doesn't upgrade without hardcoding it. I don't know
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Martijn Faassen wrote: Log message for revision 92303: zope.testing somehow doesn't upgrade without hardcoding it. I don't know why I keep running into it, but I am running into it absolutely all over the place. There is a newer release of zope.testing (3.7.0); perhaps that is part of the problem? Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI+MBx+gerLs4ltQ4RAkwVAJ9vVt/OHO1JEh5g/s6gg6KSPbmIaQCfT8Z1 vVI56/ce+ezcZMzYXZgekFM= =Yycp -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] traversal: different with and without a request
On Friday 17 October 2008, Jim Fulton wrote: It would be nice to deprecate zope.traversing and fold it into zope.app.pagetemplate. Just skimming the thread, wouldn't this make it harder for us to integrate z3c.pt, which also needs those traversal APIs? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. Zope Stephan Richter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] traversal: different with and without a request
On Oct 17, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Friday 17 October 2008, Jim Fulton wrote: It would be nice to deprecate zope.traversing and fold it into zope.app.pagetemplate. Just skimming the thread, wouldn't this make it harder for us to integrate z3c.pt, which also needs those traversal APIs? Yup. Actually, this wants to be in zope.tales. Does z3c.pt use zope.tales? Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
Christian Theune wrote at 2008-10-16 20:27 +0200: ... Then again, verifyObject is a *very* light way to spot simple errors. IMHO attributes and methods aren't that different in Python, as using both may result in exceptions. Using attributes (not computed one) does not result in exceptions. However, implementing a method of an interface doesn't check whether the method actually executes correctly -- only whether an implementation is present. Of course, it does not -- because (in general) there is not a single call which would need to be checked but usually an unlimited number of calls. One may argue that a parameterless method is very similar to an attribute (Eiffel does this), but this is not the case in Python. Arguably, the check for an attribute would be sufficient if it checked whether an attribute implementation is around -- either by a simple attribute value or a descriptor providing that. Of course one can argue: Gocept argues for it and I argue against it. There's another method: verifyClass. This definitely only checks the presence of an implementation. It only checks methods and ignores everything else. For methods, it uses the same getattr as verifyObject does (in fact, both are implemented by the same function). And if the attribute is implemented by a property (of the class, i.e. the decriptor is on the metaclass), then the descriptors __get__ is called (in the same way as for verifyObject). Instance properties (descriptor on the class) may not define methods (probably a bug). -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: And if the attribute is implemented by a property (of the class, i.e. the decriptor is on the metaclass), then the descriptors __get__ is called (in the same way as for verifyObject). Instance properties (descriptor on the class) may not define methods (probably a bug). I don't understand what you're saying in that last sentence; can you elaborate? Viele Grüße, Thomas -- Thomas Lotze · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-16 20:57 +0200: Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arguably, the check for an attribute would be sufficient if it checked whether an attribute implementation is around -- either by a simple attribute value or a descriptor providing that. At this point, I guess the outcome of the discussion depends on whether it is considered legal or abuse to implement a data descriptor in such a way that it hides an attribute defined on a base class by raising an AttributeError. That is only one extreme case. Instead, the discussion outcome depends on whether an attribute is considered to be there when the descriptor raises an exception. As the attribute is not accessible in this case, I argue that it is not there: in this case, it does not have the wrong value, it has no value at all... There's another method: verifyClass. This definitely only checks the presence of an implementation. To be more precise: the declaration of implementation of an interface as opposed to actual implementation of its attributes. Thomas: There is an issue that we regularly see with verifyClass that makes us instanciated the objects and then use verifyObject. I don't remember what it was right now. Do you? Not really, other than to avoid the case of a happy verifyClass() call with the application dying of a forgotten attribute implementation. Could there be classes we subclass that claim to implement an interface but don't fully do so until after instantiation? Just a guess... Indeed: as Python lacks a means to define instance attributes on the class, the presence of attributes can (reliably) only be checked on instances. -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dieter Maurer wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-16 20:57 +0200: Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Arguably, the check for an attribute would be sufficient if it checked whether an attribute implementation is around -- either by a simple attribute value or a descriptor providing that. At this point, I guess the outcome of the discussion depends on whether it is considered legal or abuse to implement a data descriptor in such a way that it hides an attribute defined on a base class by raising an AttributeError. That is only one extreme case. Instead, the discussion outcome depends on whether an attribute is considered to be there when the descriptor raises an exception. As the attribute is not accessible in this case, I argue that it is not there: in this case, it does not have the wrong value, it has no value at all... +1. A descriptor which raises AttributeError *denies* the existence of the attribute, period: if the contract / interface requires that the attribute exist, then such a descriptor violates the contract (under whatever circumstances it raises the error). The choice then becomes: - Satisfy the contract, e.g. by updating the descriptor to return some appropriate default in the cases where it now raises AttributeError. - Relax the contract by removing the attribute from the interface. In either case, 'verifyClass' and 'verifyObject' will behave as expected, without changes. Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI+N5v+gerLs4ltQ4RAqqEAJ440ALN/9seugX+jiayKhv6htLFRQCgvw06 nyzQaM/HA/m8j7Mxd0FmXTM= =rgCs -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-17 19:42 +0200: Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: ... Instance properties (descriptor on the class) may not define methods (probably a bug). I don't understand what you're saying in that last sentence; can you elaborate? verifyObject/verifyClass is likely not to handle the following case correctly: class I(Interface): def m(...): ... class C(object): implements(I) m = property(lambda self: lambda ...: ...) i.e. when a method (declared by the interface) is implemented by a property. -- Dieter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] [Checkins] SVN: zope.testing/trunk/ - Open doctest files in universal mode, so that packages released in Windoes
testrunner-coverage.txt is failing since this check in. What's up
with this?
Jim
On Aug 27, 2008, at 3:41 AM, Stephan Richter wrote:
Log message for revision 90401:
- Open doctest files in universal mode, so that packages released
in Windoes
can be tested in Linux, for example.
- Fixed failing test in testrunner-coverage.txt.
--This line, and those
below,
will be ignored--
AM src/zope/testing/doctest.txt
Msrc/zope/testing/tests.py
Msrc/zope/testing/doctest.py
Msrc/zope/testing/testrunner/testrunner-coverage.txt
MREADME.txt
Changed:
U zope.testing/trunk/README.txt
U zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.py
A zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.txt
U zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/testrunner/testrunner-
coverage.txt
U zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/tests.py
-=-
Modified: zope.testing/trunk/README.txt
===
--- zope.testing/trunk/README.txt 2008-08-27 07:27:11 UTC (rev 90400)
+++ zope.testing/trunk/README.txt 2008-08-27 07:41:00 UTC (rev 90401)
@@ -63,6 +63,8 @@
- Fixed NameError in StartUpFailure.
+- Open doctest files in universal mode, so that packages released
in Windoes
+ can be tested in Linux, for example.
3.6.0 (2008/07/10)
Modified: zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.py
===
--- zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.py2008-08-27
07:27:11 UTC (rev 90400)
+++ zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.py2008-08-27
07:41:00 UTC (rev 90401)
@@ -2074,7 +2074,7 @@
runner = DocTestRunner(verbose=verbose,
optionflags=optionflags)
# Read the file, convert it to a test, and run it.
-s = open(filename).read()
+s = open(filename, 'U').read()
if encoding is None:
encoding = pep263_encoding(s)
if encoding is not None:
@@ -2517,7 +2517,7 @@
# Find the file and read it.
name = os.path.basename(path)
-doc = open(path).read()
+doc = open(path, 'U').read()
# If an encoding is specified, use it to convert the file to
unicode
if encoding is None:
Added: zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.txt
===
--- zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/
doctest.txt (rev 0)
+++ zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.txt 2008-08-27
07:41:00 UTC (rev 90401)
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
+
+Additional doctest Tests
+
+
+Most `doctest` module tests are located within the module. This
file only
+tests a few additional features not covered by the module tests, so
that the
+changes to the `doctest` module -- which is forked from the Python
stanadrd
+library -- are minimized.
+
+Working with Carriage Returns
+-
+
+Due to the way releases are made on different platforms, we
sometimes test
+files on a *nix system with Windows file endings. Unfortunately,
that leaves
+some the tests broken:
+
+ import tempfile
+ fn = tempfile.mktemp()
+ open(fn, 'w').write('Test:\r\n\r\n x = 1 + 1\r\n\r\nDone.
\r\n')
+
+Let's now run it as a doctest:
+
+ from zope.testing import doctest
+ doctest.testfile(fn, False)
+ (0, 1)
+
+It worked. Let's also try the test file suite:
+
+ import unittest
+ result = unittest.TestResult()
+ doctest.DocFileSuite(fn, module_relative=False).run(result)
+ unittest.TestResult run=1 errors=0 failures=0
Property changes on: zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/doctest.txt
___
Name: svn:eol-style
+ native
Modified: zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/testrunner/testrunner-
coverage.txt
===
--- zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/testrunner/testrunner-
coverage.txt 2008-08-27 07:27:11 UTC (rev 90400)
+++ zope.testing/trunk/src/zope/testing/testrunner/testrunner-
coverage.txt 2008-08-27 07:41:00 UTC (rev 90401)
@@ -52,32 +52,41 @@
Tearing down left over layers:
Tear down zope.testing.testrunner.layer.UnitTests in 0.000
seconds.
lines cov% module (path)
- 8278% sample1.sample11.sampletests (testrunner-ex
\sample1\sample11\sampletests.py)
- 5292% sample1.sample13.sampletests (testrunner-ex
\sample1\sample13\sampletests.py)
- 5292% sample1.sampletests.test1 (testrunner-ex
\sample1\sampletests\test1.py)
- 7894% sample1.sampletests.test11 (testrunner-ex
\sample1\sampletests\test11.py)
- 7894% sample1.sampletests.test111 (testrunner-ex
\sample1\sampletests\test111.py)
- 7894% sample1.sampletests.test112 (testrunner-ex
\sample1\sampletests\test112.py)
-
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: verifyObject/verifyClass is likely not to handle the following case correctly: class I(Interface): def m(...): ... class C(object): implements(I) m = property(lambda self: lambda ...: ...) i.e. when a method (declared by the interface) is implemented by a property. Ah, I see. Thank you. Thomas -- Thomas Lotze · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dieter Maurer wrote: Thomas Lotze wrote at 2008-10-17 19:42 +0200: Dieter Maurer [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: ... Instance properties (descriptor on the class) may not define methods (probably a bug). I don't understand what you're saying in that last sentence; can you elaborate? verifyObject/verifyClass is likely not to handle the following case correctly: class I(Interface): def m(...): ... class C(object): implements(I) m = property(lambda self: lambda ...: ...) i.e. when a method (declared by the interface) is implemented by a property. Why would I want to do that, rather than using 'def m(self):'? Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software Excellence by Designhttp://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI+OQK+gerLs4ltQ4RAjhgAJ9hS2kbePps6Ka2yqK8gOF94XOmlgCg1HWc y/uPVTUWU3e7p6PZROToHLY= =UCfg -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] [Checkins] SVN: zope.testing/trunk/ - Open doctest files in universal mode, so that packages released in Windoes
On Friday 17 October 2008, Jim Fulton wrote: testrunner-coverage.txt is failing since this check in. What's up with this? It passes for me on Python 2.5. Can you be more specific? Are you using a ZC-internal set of package versions? :-) Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. Zope Stephan Richter ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] [Checkins] SVN: zope.testing/trunk/ - Open doctest files in universal mode, so that packages released in Windoes
On Oct 17, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Friday 17 October 2008, Jim Fulton wrote: testrunner-coverage.txt is failing since this check in. What's up with this? It passes for me on Python 2.5. Sigh. It passes for me too with 2.5. Can you be more specific? It fails with Python 2.4. I guess we should live with this. :( I don't feel like chasing it and I'm sure you don't either. Never mind. Jim -- Jim Fulton Zope Corporation ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.interface: verifyObject vs properties
Tres Seaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb: Dieter Maurer wrote: class C(object): implements(I) m = property(lambda self: lambda ...: ...) i.e. when a method (declared by the interface) is implemented by a property. Why would I want to do that, rather than using 'def m(self):'? - to win an obfucated-code contest - to get an additional closure for the method that is created each time the method is accessed Viele Grüße, Thomas Lotze -- Thomas Lotze · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Errors / Warnings in Zope log - what to do?
Hi, During testing, I found the following warnings/errors in my zope log: --- 2008-10-17T17:56:50 WARNING ZopePublication Competing writes/reads at ???: database conflict error (oid 0x06d3, class zc.queue._queue.BucketQueue, serial this txn started with 0x0379451cbf5d7bdd 2008-10-17 15:56:44.851212, serial currently committed 0x0379451ccd1f50bb 2008-10-17 15:56:48.075545) -- 2008-10-17T17:58:10 ERROR txn.1121233232 Error in tpc_abort() on manager zope.sqlalchemy.datamanager.SessionDataManager object at 0x35a4f50 Traceback (most recent call last): File /home/dusty/prog/bsp/buildout/eggs/ZODB3-3.8.0-py2.4-linux-x86_64.egg/transaction/_transaction.py, line 462, in _cleanup rm.tpc_abort(self) File /home/dusty/prog/bsp/buildout/eggs/zope.sqlalchemy-0.3-py2.4.egg/zope/sqlalchemy/datamanager.py, line 82, in tpc_abort raise TypeError(Already committed) TypeError: Already committed -- 2008-10-17T17:58:10 WARNING ZopePublication Competing writes/reads at /BSPSite/act/@@/bspskin-res/bankaustria.gif: database conflict error (oid 0x06e3, class zope.session.session.SessionData) -- Why is this happening? I have to admit, that I'm currently testing/implementing background tasks with lovely.remotetask - perhaps this is the reason? Perhaps it's the combination with zope.sqlalchemy? Best Regards, Hermann -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers) FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9 4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] Double usage of vocabulary in z3c.form seems to fail
Am Freitag 17 Oktober 2008 18:06:34 schrieb Hermann Himmelbauer: Hi, I currently have two schema.Choice() fields in my z3c.form - based form, that references the same vocabulary. Aeh, sorry, forget about it - I had a mistake in my page template, which referenced the same widget for two times, hence the failure... Best Regards, Hermann -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers) FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9 4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7 ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] traversal: different with and without a request
Previously Jim Fulton wrote: On Oct 17, 2008, at 1:13 PM, Stephan Richter wrote: On Friday 17 October 2008, Jim Fulton wrote: It would be nice to deprecate zope.traversing and fold it into zope.app.pagetemplate. Just skimming the thread, wouldn't this make it harder for us to integrate z3c.pt, which also needs those traversal APIs? Yup. Actually, this wants to be in zope.tales. Does z3c.pt use zope.tales? No. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman [EMAIL PROTECTED]It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple. ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
