Tres Seaver wrote:
The default usecase for running tests should be a developer making
changes and running tests. In this case, silent mode is unhelpful;
it gives no feedback until the very end of the run, which takes a
**long** time for the whole Zope2 tree. The dots provided at
verbosity
I really really wouldn't want to see added on top of the current Zope2
publisher.
The Zope 2 publisher (and the various traversal mechanisms -- publisher,
restrictedTraverse, TALES) should first be refactored to use Zope 3
mechanisms, and only after that is done should we consider adding the
[Chris McDonough]
There is a wrinkle about performing this merge that eluded my memory
until now.
To support multidatabases within Zope, it was reasonable to change
ZODB.config.ZODBDatabase to support the heretofore
likely-unused-by-real-world-code databases and database_name options
that
Chris, FYI, I stitched ZODB 3.6.0b1 into zodb-blobs-branch, and
changed ZopeDatabase.createDB() to plug database_name into config
instead of passing it to ZODBDatabase.open(). The checkin msg
summarizes test results; since I haven't work on this branch before,
I'm not sure what was expected here
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Peters wrote:
Log message for revision 39583:
Move to ZODB 3.6.0b1.
ZopeDatabase.createDB(): Plug database_name into config rather than
passing it to ZODBDatabase.open(). More should be done to detect
conflicting zodb_db section
[Tim Peters]
Log message for revision 39583:
Move to ZODB 3.6.0b1.
ZopeDatabase.createDB(): Plug database_name into config rather than
passing it to ZODBDatabase.open(). More should be done to detect
conflicting zodb_db section name and database_name, but I'm not
sure where all
Thanks for this!
Looks like that test failure is incidental and not symptomatic of
changes made to ZODB. I think Tres may have said that it can be
fixed by merging in a fix from the Five HEAD, but I don't know this
for fact first-hand.
It's encouraging that most of the tests pass but
Jim Fulton wrote:
I was about to start working on integrating the new test runner
and was reminded that we need to integrate Zope differently than we did
for 2.8/3.0. Then, we took advantage of the fact that packages not
included
in the Zope X3 3.0 release were trimmed from the corresponding
[Chris McDonough]
Thanks for this!
Not required, so long as I get to thank you for finishing it ;-)
Looks like that test failure is incidental and not symptomatic of
changes made to ZODB. I think Tres may have said that it can be
fixed by merging in a fix from the Five HEAD, but I don't
