Raphael Ritz wrote at 2005-6-3 09:40 +0200:
>Chris Withers wrote:
>[..]
>> That said, I'm also aware that there are currently 4 of us talking about
>> this, 2 on each side. What does the rest of the community think?
>>
>
>Since you ask so explicitly ;-)
>
>I agree with Florent: Your site's _USERES
Raphael Ritz wrote:
Since you ask so explicitly ;-)
I agree with Florent: Your site's _USERES_ should never get
an error thrown at.
Even if they're potentially destroying their own data as a result?!
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.s
Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-5-27 13:30 +0200:
> ...
>Let's not go into too much semantics here. Note that WARNING is an alias
>of PROBLEM. zLOG defines these levels as:
>
> PROBLEM=100 -- This isn't causing any immediate problems, but deserves
> attention.
>
> ERROR=200-
Dieter Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[about getObject logging missing objects]
> >Yes, logging should be there. I'll add a LOG at level WARNING somewhere,
> >I'm not sure where (after all it's unrestrictedTraverse that does the
> >catching).
>
> When something in the catalog tells you, there
Dieter Maurer wrote:
Yes, logging should be there. I'll add a LOG at level WARNING somewhere,
I'm not sure where (after all it's unrestrictedTraverse that does the
catching).
When something in the catalog tells you, there were an object
and the object is not locatable, then this is an ERROR
an
Florent Guillaume wrote at 2005-4-22 17:17 +0200:
>Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>> Yes we do! I really really really want to know if:
>> - I have a catalog entry that points to an object that no longer exists.
>> This can ONLY happen due to a bug somewhere and needs to be fixed
Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The None issue is a red herring, it's just that we *don't* want to fail
> > even if there are broken indexes. No we don't. We're reindexing what we
> > can find in the catalog. We don't want an exception.
>
> Yes we do! I really really really want to k
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Please read and understand the code more carefully.
There is no expected error. reindexObjectSecurity (which I introduced
more than 2 years ago because CMF was buggy without it) needs access to
all subobjects to reindex them. To do that it has to:
1. use an unrestricted se
Chris Withers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>
> > Chris, you need to get off this hobby horse. Florent's fix was correct
> > for the *new* model which has 'getObject' raising (a model you profess
> > to *like*).
>
> Why not by catching the expected errors? Do you like bare try
