Tres Seaver wrote:
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
I'm still -1 on merging the branch as it is and Stefan confirmed that
PortalTestCase should not be used directly: http://
mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022932.html
Lets work on replacing the PortalTestCase in Testing.ZopeTestCase wi
Here's the result of my refactoring/rewriting for the tests in question:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch/?
rev=38439&view=rev
Geoff, as the one with the most "domain knowledge" as far as the code
changes go, could you check the tests (and especially the co
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>> I'm still -1 on merging the branch as it is and Stefan confirmed that
>> PortalTestCase should not be used directly: http://
>> mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022932.html
Lets work on replacing the PortalTes
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 04:33:48PM +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
| >I'm still -1 on merging the branch as it is and Stefan confirmed
| >that PortalTestCase should not be used directly: http://
| >mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022932.html
|
| How about a compromise: I'll spend a
On 9 Sep 2005, at 15:10, yuppie wrote:
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:33:53 +0200, yuppie wrote:
Are you aware of the fact that test_Template304Handling.py
depends on PortalTestCase? Do you plan to change that before
merging your branch?
Yes, I am aware of that fact. No,
On Fri, 2005-09-09 at 16:10 +0200, yuppie wrote:
> I'm still -1 on merging the branch as it is and Stefan confirmed that
> PortalTestCase should not be used directly:
> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022932.html
Yes, Stefan and I are saying the same thing: the Right Way t
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:33:53 +0200, yuppie wrote:
Are you aware of the fact that test_Template304Handling.py depends on
PortalTestCase? Do you plan to change that before merging your branch?
Yes, I am aware of that fact. No, I am not planning to change it -- it
works jus
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 11:33:53 +0200, yuppie wrote:
>> Perhaps I wasn't clear earlier when I said that I thought we should ship
>> our own CMFDefaultTestCase with the CMF? If I am understanding you
>> correctly, shipping a CMF-specific CMFDefaultTestCase should address your
>> dependency concerns.
yuppie wrote:
- Even with your workaround the tests are failing if run together with
CMFCalendar tests. Looks like the skin changes in
CalendarRequestTests.setUp are not cleaned up correctly.
Just checked in a fix for this. (1.5 branch and trunk)
Cheers, Yuppie
__
Hi Geoff!
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:24:51 +0200, yuppie wrote:
Knock! Knock! Anybody there?
I told you twice that I'm concerned about using PortalTestCase:
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022891.html
Would be nice to get some feedback. Obviously you do
Dieter Maurer wrote:
> Someone making occational changes may not be interested
> to be informed about all the modifications going on.
+1.
-PW
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-cmf
See htt
Sidnei da Silva wrote:
| The z3interfaces tests are based on the assumption that Five is
| available if zope.interface is available. Five creates IActionInfo
| dynamically on startup.
|
| That's obviously not true in your setup. Looking again at these tests it
| would be more robust to include
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 19:24:51 +0200, yuppie wrote:
> Knock! Knock! Anybody there?
>
> I told you twice that I'm concerned about using PortalTestCase:
> http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-cmf/2005-September/022891.html
>
> Would be nice to get some feedback. Obviously you don't share those
> con
| The z3interfaces tests are based on the assumption that Five is
| available if zope.interface is available. Five creates IActionInfo
| dynamically on startup.
|
| That's obviously not true in your setup. Looking again at these tests it
| would be more robust to include the interface imports i
Jens Vagelpohl wrote at 2005-9-8 11:41 +0100:
>
>On 8 Sep 2005, at 11:08, yuppie wrote:
> ...
>Geoff, can you double-
>check that the email address you have in your zope.org membership is
>correct and then subscribe to the cmf-checkins list? That should make
>any further check-in messages appe
Hi Geoff!
Geoff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:08:23 +0200, yuppie wrote:
- Tests are easier to find and maintain if they are located in
test_.py. Most CMF tests follow that pattern.
Yes, I put the tests relating to new CachingPolicyManager functionality
into test_CachingPolicyManager
On 8 Sep 2005, at 16:48, Geoff Davis wrote:
bin/zopectl test --dir Products/CMFCore/tests
I get a bunch of errors like the following:
==
ERROR: test_z3interfaces
(CMFCore.tests.test_ActionInformation.ActionInfoTests)
--
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 12:08:23 +0200, yuppie wrote:
> - Please make sure your checkins show up on the CMF-checkins list. Don't
> know if Tres can fix that for you or if you've got to register for that
> list.
Ok, I will look into it.
> - Please don't forget to set svn:eol-style and svn:keywords
On 8 Sep 2005, at 12:00, yuppie wrote:
PS Those of you who raised concerns about ZopeTestCase causing
test
problems in Zope 2.7 might want to take a look at why
test_z3interfaces is
broken when you run the tests with zopectl test.
1.) Why "those of you who raised concerns about ZopeTest
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
On 8 Sep 2005, at 11:08, yuppie wrote:
PS Those of you who raised concerns about ZopeTestCase causing test
problems in Zope 2.7 might want to take a look at why
test_z3interfaces is
broken when you run the tests with zopectl test.
1.) Why "those of you who raised co
On 8 Sep 2005, at 11:08, yuppie wrote:
- Please make sure your checkins show up on the CMF-checkins list.
Don't know if Tres can fix that for you or if you've got to
register for that list.
I was wondering why I did not get any mail... Geoff, can you double-
check that the email address y
Hi Geoff!
Geoff Davis wrote:
I have checked my CachingPolicyManager improvements into the
geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch. Enjoy!
Great!
Some feedback regard formal aspects:
- Please make sure your checkins show up on the CMF-checkins list. Don't
know if Tres can fix that for you or if
22 matches
Mail list logo
