The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector
(http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF).
Assigned and Open
mhammond
- "Windows DevelopmentMode penalty in CMFCore.DirectoryView",
[Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/366
Pending / Deferred Issues
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Sun Mar 25 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Mon Mar 26 12:00:00 2007 UTC.
There were 11 messages: 11 from CMF Unit Tests.
Test failures
-
Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : CMF-1.5 Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Sun Mar 25 2
Martin Aspeli wrote:
The UniqueIDAnnotationTool should probably do a *query*Utility (which
will return None in case the utility can't be found) and simply not do
anything in such a case. The canonical way of expressing such
fail-safe routines is therefore:
component = query{Utility|Adapter
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>
> *sigh* Chapter XYZ in my book explains the process :). Whenever you
> traverse over a site, its site manager becomes the active component
> registry. So if you haven't traversed over that site yet, the utilities
> in that site won't be found. It's that si
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
*sigh* Chapter XYZ in my book explains the process :). Whenever you
traverse over a site, its site manager becomes the active component
registry. So if you haven't traversed over that site yet, the utilities
in that site won't be found. It'
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
*sigh* Chapter XYZ in my book explains the process :). Whenever you
traverse over a site, its site manager becomes the active component
registry. So if you haven't traversed over that site yet, the utilitie
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-3-25 12:46 +0100:
> ...
>I agree, except I think there could potentially be lots of places where
>this could be happening. In the general case, it's probably safe for
>that code to assume the utility is there, and treat it as an error if
>it's not, but during site del
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Martin Aspeli wrote at 2007-3-25 12:46 +0100:
...
I agree, except I think there could potentially be lots of places where
this could be happening. In the general case, it's probably safe for
that code to assume the utility is there, and treat it as an error if
it's not, b
