The following supporters have open issues assigned to them in this collector
(http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF).
Assigned and Open
dreamcatcher
- setChainForPortalTypes doesn't allow to set default chain,
[Accepted] http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/475
mhammond
-
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 16:01:38 +0200 yuppie wrote:
Godefroid Chapelle wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
c) improving five.lsm (Rocky)
AFAICS this is an other attempt to resolve the same issue:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2007-March/025708.html
Hi!
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by
principle are context-less components.
By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as
expected. We just don't pass that 'site context' explicitly to the
component as in
Hi!
Balazs Ree wrote:
The root problem is that the z3 component lookup, in case site managers
are chained, is accessing the data of the chained site managers directly
and bypassing its code. Iow it does not matter whatever acquisition
wrapping you add in five.lsm. If there is any other site
Summary of messages to the cmf-tests list.
Period Wed Apr 11 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Thu Apr 12 12:00:00 2007 UTC.
There were 11 messages: 11 from CMF Unit Tests.
Unknown
---
Subject: UNKNOWN : CMF-2.1 Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: CMF Unit Tests
Date: Wed Apr 11 21:35:38 EDT 2007
URL:
yuppie wrote:
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
yuppie wrote:
Kapil's also right when he says that utilities by principle are
context-less components.
By principle all Zope 3 code might depend on setSite to work as
expected.
setSite() is something that influences the place (= registry)
Alec Mitchell wrote at 2007-4-12 06:59 -0700:
...
... deprecation of getToolByName ...
which is that there's no practical reason other than
aesthetics to deprecate getToolByName at this point.
A very good point: let's deprecate deprecations done just for
aethetical reasons :-)
This still
Tres Seaver wrote:
yuppie wrote:
BTW: Are there any unit tests for the upgrade steps feature?
I'll defer to Rob: he was porting the code from the CPS add-on.
okay, i've gotten things to a reasonable place, committed on the
tseaver-bbq_sprint branch. there are tests for the upgrade step
Alec Mitchell wrote:
On 4/11/07, yuppie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi!
Kapil Thangavelu wrote:
On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:09:27 -0400, Jens Vagelpohl
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On 10 Apr 2007, at 10:30, yuppie wrote:
Currently non-five.lsm site managers don't work in CMF, see this
thread:
