Re: [Zope-dev] Re: AW: Heads up: Dependencies!

2008-04-15 Thread Christian Theune
On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:25:46PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:

 On Apr 12, 2008, at 10:01 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
 Even better:  use the documented setuptools keyword[1]  
 'tests_require',
 and get the testrunner / buildout to use that hook when running tests.

 This doesn't address the central point that testing a different software 
 configuration in testing than will be used in production can lead to 
 unpleasant surprises in production.

Fullack.

@Roger: I think you might have misunderstood the flying-versus-testing
argument. *Any* change in the software configuration that makes the test
environment differ from the production environment raises the risk of getting
unexpected errors. As the world isn't just black and white the two extremes
(no just-for-test dependencies in production versus all-even-just-for-test
dependencies in production) could be spelled out like this:

- Minimize the amount of special dependencies that only your testing code
  needs. (Only get a new dependency for a test if it's really worth it.
  `zope.testing` is an example.)

- Maximize the amount of dependencies that are shared within testing and
  production. (Carrying over `zope.testing` into production is an example as
  well.)

 As to tests_require, unfortunately, it can't be used by buildout or any 
 other setuptools-based application because it's presence isn't reflected 
 in egg info. :( This is why people who want to provide test dependencies 
 have been forced to use test extras. (tests_require is only usable by the 
 test runner setup command.

 See http://mail.python.org/pipermail/distutils-sig/2007-January/007082.html

 FWIW, I think using test extras is a necessary evil when testing  
 dependencies are significant.  I wouldn't use it just to avoid a  
 dependency on zope.testing, but I would and have used test extras to  
 avoid more extensive dependencies.

+1 as well. One of my intentions here is to avoid getting zope.app.*
dependencies in zope.* packages. However, in the long run, those dependencies
probably should go away by reworking the tests or refactoring the (overall)
code base.

Christian


-- 
gocept gmbh  co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle (saale) - germany
www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 345 122 9889 7 -
fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone consulting and development
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] A permanent log for buildouts

2008-04-15 Thread Chris Withers

Jim Fulton wrote:
configuration.  IMO, it would be enough to provide an option to name a 
logger config file as described in:


  http://docs.python.org/lib/logging-config-fileformat.html


This stuff is an annoying dead end in that it only lets you use log 
handlers defined inside the logging package...


Probably doesn't matter much here, but still annoying...

Chris

--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope  Python Consulting
   - http://www.simplistix.co.uk
___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 5 OK

2008-04-15 Thread Zope Tests Summarizer
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list.
Period Mon Apr 14 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Tue Apr 15 11:00:00 2008 UTC.
There were 5 messages: 5 from Zope Tests.


Tests passed OK
---

Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Apr 14 21:00:07 EDT 2008
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-April/009405.html

Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Apr 14 21:01:38 EDT 2008
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-April/009406.html

Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Apr 14 21:03:08 EDT 2008
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-April/009407.html

Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Apr 14 21:04:38 EDT 2008
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-April/009408.html

Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux
From: Zope Tests
Date: Mon Apr 14 21:06:10 EDT 2008
URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-April/009409.html

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: Five and browser-oriented components

2008-04-15 Thread Martijn Faassen

Alexander Limi wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:11:11 -0700, Philipp von Weitershausen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


*IF* you'd like to be pragmatic, I'd suggest we clean up those failing 
Plone tests, merge the branch and be on our way.


I'm also happy to make it visible on the Plone agenda, as long as it's 
made clear where the error is and what we have to fix. We all want this 
branch to land on trunk. :)


This gets back to Hanno's suggestion of writing a clean test case that 
demonstrates this problem. We can then get it into Zope and fix it. This 
should allow cleaning up the Zope 3 integration in Zope 2 significantly.


Then we can start experimenting with Zope 3-based *content* in Zope 2 too.

http://faassen.n--tree.net/blog/view/weblog/2008/01/30/0

Regards,

Martijn

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


AW: [Zope-dev] Re: AW: Heads up: Dependencies!

2008-04-15 Thread Roger Ineichen
Hi Christian

 Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Re: AW: Heads up: Dependencies!
 
 On Sun, Apr 13, 2008 at 12:25:46PM -0400, Jim Fulton wrote:
 
  On Apr 12, 2008, at 10:01 PM, Tres Seaver wrote:
  Even better:  use the documented setuptools keyword[1] 
  'tests_require', and get the testrunner / buildout to use 
 that hook 
  when running tests.
 
  This doesn't address the central point that testing a different 
  software configuration in testing than will be used in 
 production can 
  lead to unpleasant surprises in production.
 
 Fullack.
 
 @Roger: I think you might have misunderstood the 
 flying-versus-testing argument. *Any* change in the software 
 configuration that makes the test environment differ from the 
 production environment raises the risk of getting unexpected 
 errors. As the world isn't just black and white the two 
 extremes (no just-for-test dependencies in production versus 
 all-even-just-for-test dependencies in production) could be 
 spelled out like this:
 
 - Minimize the amount of special dependencies that only your 
 testing code
   needs. (Only get a new dependency for a test if it's really 
 worth it.
   `zope.testing` is an example.)
 
 - Maximize the amount of dependencies that are shared within 
 testing and
   production. (Carrying over `zope.testing` into production 
 is an example as
   well.)

I agree, but that was not the point in my previous mail.

[...]

  FWIW, I think using test extras is a necessary evil when testing 
  dependencies are significant.  I wouldn't use it just to avoid a 
  dependency on zope.testing, but I would and have used test 
 extras to 
  avoid more extensive dependencies.
 
 +1 as well. One of my intentions here is to avoid getting zope.app.*
 dependencies in zope.* packages. However, in the long run, 
 those dependencies probably should go away by reworking the 
 tests or refactoring the (overall) code base.

Yes, that's what I was asking for.
Ok, I will pick up this topic as soon as I have time.

Regards
Roger Ineichen


 Christian
 
 
 --
 gocept gmbh  co. kg - forsterstrasse 29 - 06112 halle 
 (saale) - germany www.gocept.com - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - phone +49 
 345 122 9889 7 - fax +49 345 122 9889 1 - zope and plone 
 consulting and development 

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Exception verbosity in CA

2008-04-15 Thread Malthe Borch

Some motivation:


File .../zope/interface/adapter.py, line 482, in queryMultiAdapter
result = factory(*objects)
TypeError: __init__() takes exactly 2 arguments (3 given)

Perhaps the need for introspection tools would not be so immediate if 
the exceptions were more informative; for instance, in the example 
above, why not print the repr of the factory having problems.


Or better, use the ``inspect`` module to show what the factory expects 
in terms of parameters and list the ``*objects`` passed to it.


\malthe

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Field for blobs?

2008-04-15 Thread Christian Zagrodnick

Hi,

I'd need a zope.schema field for blobs. Should this go directly to 
zope.schema or some third party package?


Something like

  bla = zope.schema.Blob(title=...)

would be nice to have.


--
Christian Zagrodnick

gocept gmbh  co. kg  ·  forsterstrasse 29 · 06112 halle/saale
www.gocept.com · fon. +49 345 12298894 · fax. +49 345 12298891



___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Field for blobs?

2008-04-15 Thread Nikolay Kim
On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 16:14 +0200, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I'd need a zope.schema field for blobs. Should this go directly to 
 zope.schema or some third party package?

there is z3c.schema package for various third party packages


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


AW: [Zope-dev] Field for blobs?

2008-04-15 Thread Roger Ineichen
Hi Christian

Regards
Roger Ineichen
_
END OF MESSAGE
 

 -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
 Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im 
 Auftrag von Nikolay Kim
 Gesendet: Dienstag, 15. April 2008 22:29
 An: zope-dev@zope.org
 Betreff: Re: [Zope-dev] Field for blobs?
 
 On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 16:14 +0200, Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
  Hi,
  
  I'd need a zope.schema field for blobs. Should this go directly to 
  zope.schema or some third party package?
 
 there is z3c.schema package for various third party packages

If this widget doesn't depend on ZODB it's a good choice. If it
depends on ZODB and other things it's pobably bad for someone 
who likes this widgets but does not use ZODB at all.

Right now all widgets included in the z3c.widget depend only
on:

import re
import zope.schema
import zope.interfaces
import z3c.i18n 

I think this is a very good choice and it whould be bad to 
depend on more components then that.

The other option whould be to split every widget into it's own
package and use z3c.widget as namespace package.

What do you think?

Regards
Roger Ineichen


 ___
 Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
 **  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  ** (Related lists -  
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
  http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
 

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists -
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: AW: [Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-Users] How do I automatically login a user]

2008-04-15 Thread kevin gill
I have made many changes to the first version of this proposal and
submitted a new version to the wiki.

http://wiki.zope.org/zope3/SessionCredentialsAPIEnhancements

I have checked in an example implementation to the Zope SVN repository.
The code is at:

svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Sandbox/kevingill2/zope.app.authentication

Of via browser:

http://svn.zope.org/Sandbox/kevingill2/zope.app.authentication/

I would appreciate any feedback on either the proposal or the implementation.

Thanks

Kevin


___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce
 http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: Field for blobs?

2008-04-15 Thread Martijn Faassen

Hi there,

Christian Zagrodnick wrote:
I'd need a zope.schema field for blobs. Should this go directly to 
zope.schema or some third party package?


Something like

  bla = zope.schema.Blob(title=...)

would be nice to have.


If you mean using blobs for file storage, see megrok.form, which in turn 
uses collective.namedblobfile for the actual field and widget.


Regards,

Martijn

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


Re: [Zope-dev] Exception verbosity in CA

2008-04-15 Thread Chris McDonough

Malthe Borch wrote:

Some motivation:


File .../zope/interface/adapter.py, line 482, in queryMultiAdapter
result = factory(*objects)
TypeError: __init__() takes exactly 2 arguments (3 given)

Perhaps the need for introspection tools would not be so immediate if 
the exceptions were more informative; for instance, in the example 
above, why not print the repr of the factory having problems.


Or better, use the ``inspect`` module to show what the factory expects 
in terms of parameters and list the ``*objects`` passed to it.


+1

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )


[Zope-dev] Re: Five and browser-oriented components

2008-04-15 Thread Hanno Schlichting

Martijn Faassen wrote:

Alexander Limi wrote:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:11:11 -0700, Philipp von Weitershausen 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


*IF* you'd like to be pragmatic, I'd suggest we clean up those 
failing Plone tests, merge the branch and be on our way.


This gets back to Hanno's suggestion of writing a clean test case that 
demonstrates this problem. We can then get it into Zope and fix it. This 
should allow cleaning up the Zope 3 integration in Zope 2 significantly.


I kept my promise and added the simple tests for the first two issues I 
found while doing testing against Plone.


The third issue is more complex to reproduce in a simple way and has to 
do with NamedTemplateAdapters and their interaction with 
ViewPageTemplate files. I'll see if I can put together a unit tests for 
it this week as well.


But for those interested in this, the first two tests should be a good 
start. I wrote down the technical details on this from my point of view 
to the list back in December. You can view that post at: 
http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2007-December/030548.html


Please ignore the horrendous code in that mail which I wrote out of 
despair back then.


Hanno

___
Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce

http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )