[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 5 OK
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Jul 2 11:00:00 2008 UTC to Thu Jul 3 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: Wed Jul 2 20:53:47 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009795.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 2 20:55:17 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009796.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 2 20:56:47 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009797.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 2 20:58:17 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009798.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Jul 2 20:59:47 EDT 2008 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2008-July/009799.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] zc.testbrowser.real support for mozlab 0.1.9
Hi, I've checked in a branch with changes to the testbrowser.real code to make it work with mozlab 0.1.9 (and firefox 3). Could someone please review the code and inform me, if I can merge it with the trunk? The branch can be found at svn.zope.org/repos/main/zc.testbrowser/branches/sweh-mozlab0.1.9 Regards, Sebastian -- Sebastian Wehrmann · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 12 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ 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] zc.testbrowser.real support for mozlab 0.1.9
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Sebastian Wehrmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, I've checked in a branch with changes to the testbrowser.real code to make it work with mozlab 0.1.9 (and firefox 3). Cool. Could someone please review the code and inform me, if I can merge it with the trunk? I'll review it in the next couple of days and get back with you. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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] Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down
I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N, where N is the maximum number of processes. I have it basically working, but have noticed a couple odd corners of the test runner that I'd like to clean up. They may be controversial, so I'll ask about them here first. I'd like to 1) remove the layer tear-down mechanism entirely, and 2) make (almost) all layers run in a subprocess. I want to do #1 because it would simplify the test runner code and no one seems to be using the functionality anyway. It also appears from reading the code that any tests run in a subprocess (and most are) will never exercise the tear-down mechanism anyway. #2 will add some process start-up overhead, but it'll only be one more process than is already started (and any reasonably-sized test corpus already starts several processes for each test run). The one exception is for running with -D or with a pdb.set_trace() embedded in the code under test. For that case we need a switch to say don't start any subprocesses at all, I suspect that will be spelled -j0. For motivation, some speed comparisons: running a particular test suite with 3876 tests (mostly doctests, and mostly functional) without the patch takes 6 minutes, 42 seconds; my branch runs the same tests in 3 minutes and 22 seconds (give or take) on a dual-core box with 3 simultaneous subprocesses. -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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] Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down
On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote: I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N, where N is the maximum number of processes. I have it basically working, but have noticed a couple odd corners of the test runner that I'd like to clean up. They may be controversial, so I'll ask about them here first. I'd like to 1) remove the layer tear-down mechanism entirely, and 2) make (almost) all layers run in a subprocess. I want to do #1 because it would simplify the test runner code and no one seems to be using the functionality anyway. It also appears from reading the code that any tests run in a subprocess (and most are) will never exercise the tear-down mechanism anyway. +1 in general but -1 on removing the tear down functionality. We use it to destroy external databases that where generated for setup. #2 will add some process start-up overhead, but it'll only be one more process than is already started (and any reasonably-sized test corpus already starts several processes for each test run). The one exception is for running with -D or with a pdb.set_trace() embedded in the code under test. For that case we need a switch to say don't start any subprocesses at all, I suspect that will be spelled -j0. +1 as well. I'm actually wondering whether we might be able to control the pdb through a sub-process. For motivation, some speed comparisons: running a particular test suite with 3876 tests (mostly doctests, and mostly functional) without the patch takes 6 minutes, 42 seconds; my branch runs the same tests in 3 minutes and 22 seconds (give or take) on a dual-core box with 3 simultaneous subprocesses. Yay! -- Christian Theune · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ 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] Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down
Hi Benji Betreff: [Zope-dev] Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down [... ] #2 will add some process start-up overhead, but it'll only be one more process than is already started (and any reasonably-sized test corpus already starts several processes for each test run). The one exception is for running with -D or with a pdb.set_trace() embedded in the code under test. For that case we need a switch to say don't start any subprocesses at all, I suspect that will be spelled -j0. That's a very important point. I often use pdb if I write tests. For motivation, some speed comparisons: running a particular test suite with 3876 tests (mostly doctests, and mostly functional) without the patch takes 6 minutes, 42 seconds; my branch runs the same tests in 3 minutes and 22 seconds (give or take) on a dual-core box with 3 simultaneous subprocesses. Yeah, great! Regards Roger Ineichen Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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] Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down
On Thu, Jul 3, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Christian Theune [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 17:22 -0400, Benji York wrote: I'd like to 1) remove the layer tear-down mechanism entirely, and 2) make (almost) all layers run in a subprocess. I want to do #1 because it would simplify the test runner code and no one seems to be using the functionality anyway. It also appears from reading the code that any tests run in a subprocess (and most are) will never exercise the tear-down mechanism anyway. +1 in general but -1 on removing the tear down functionality. We use it to destroy external databases that where generated for setup. Ah! Good point. #2 will add some process start-up overhead, but it'll only be one more process than is already started (and any reasonably-sized test corpus already starts several processes for each test run). The one exception is for running with -D or with a pdb.set_trace() embedded in the code under test. For that case we need a switch to say don't start any subprocesses at all, I suspect that will be spelled -j0. +1 as well. I'm actually wondering whether we might be able to control the pdb through a sub-process. I don't think it'd be that hard, in general, but the current design of using stdout and stderr for IPC communication channels is a hindrance. For motivation, some speed comparisons: running a particular test suite with 3876 tests (mostly doctests, and mostly functional) without the patch takes 6 minutes, 42 seconds; my branch runs the same tests in 3 minutes and 22 seconds (give or take) on a dual-core box with 3 simultaneous subprocesses. Yay! I have an 8 core machine that I can't wait to try it on. ;) -- Benji York Senior Software Engineer Zope Corporation ___ 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] Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 05:22:11PM -0400, Benji York wrote: I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in parallelized subprocesses. The option will likely be spelled -j N, where N is the maximum number of processes. That's wonderful news! I have it basically working, but have noticed a couple odd corners of the test runner that I'd like to clean up. They may be controversial, so I'll ask about them here first. I'd like to 1) remove the layer tear-down mechanism entirely, and 2) make (almost) all layers run in a subprocess. -1 in general. +1 if you do that only for -j N where N 1. Running all the tests in a single process has the following benefits: * test coverage analysis produces results that are correct (well, correct often enough -- but it has no chance at all when the test runner forks a subprocess) * import pdb; pdb.set_trace() works I want to do #1 because it would simplify the test runner code and no one seems to be using the functionality anyway. That's news to me. A while ago I went through Zope 3 trunk (it was pre-eggsplosion IIRC) and made sure all test layers defined in it supported teardown. Granted, FunctionalTestLayer() has allow_teardown=False as the default, for two reasons: * backwards compatibility: in olden days functional test layers didn't support teardown * paranoia: it is in general impossible to determine whether calling CleanUp().cleanUp() will correctly clear all the global state (someone could easily write a custom ZCML directive that changed a global variable and forget to register a CleanUp hook), so disallowing teardowns were the conservative safe choice. It is entirely my fault that I haven't evangelized the allow_teardown=True option for creating new test layers. It also appears from reading the code that any tests run in a subprocess (and most are) will never exercise the tear-down mechanism anyway. I guess that's fine for process state, but not so fine for external state (temporary files etc.). Hey, this might explain why SchoolTool's tests tend to fill up my buildbot's /tmp without cleaning up after themselves! I'll have to investigate some day. #2 will add some process start-up overhead, but it'll only be one more process than is already started (and any reasonably-sized test corpus already starts several processes for each test run). The one exception is for running with -D or with a pdb.set_trace() embedded in the code under test. For that case we need a switch to say don't start any subprocesses at all, I suspect that will be spelled -j0. If that case needs to be supported anyway, what's the advantage of spawning exactly one subprocess when you run it with -j 1? I would also question whether pdb-unfriendly non-performance-enhancing option should be the default. For motivation, some speed comparisons: running a particular test suite with 3876 tests (mostly doctests, and mostly functional) without the patch takes 6 minutes, 42 seconds; my branch runs the same tests in 3 minutes and 22 seconds (give or take) on a dual-core box with 3 simultaneous subprocesses. I know; for large test suites (by large I mean 40 minutes) I've been using an ugly hack (--odd/--even test filtering) that lets me use both CPUs if I manually run two instances of the test runner in two xterms in parallel. Regards, Marius Gedminas -- Wipe Info uses hexadecimal values to wipe files. This provides more security than wiping with decimal values. -- Norton SystemWorks 2002 Manual signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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] TALES iterator odd/even reversal
Recently I migrated a large-ish app built on Zope 3.2 to Zope 3.4. (About time I hear someone mumbling in the audience.) One strange difference was that TALES iterators swapped the meaning of odd and even, i.e. p tal:repeat=item python: [1, 2, 3, 4] span tal:condition=repeat/var/oddoddspan span tal:condition=repeat/var/evenevenspan /p produces different results on Zope 3.4 than it did on 3.2. Does anyone know why this is? Is this a bug? Should it be fixed? Marius Gedminas -- Perl is hard for most people to write. They write PERL or Pearl. -- Abigail signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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] Itemtraverser and Unauthorized vs Views
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 01:39:28PM +0200, Christian Theune wrote: I have a problem with the standard item traverser provided by zope.app.container: The item traverser looks up a object using the given name and a __getitem__ call on the context. If this raises a KeyError it tries to look up a view given the same name. If the user does not have the permission to access __getitem__ it will let the Unauthorized exception pass through. I my situation I have two views for which the user doesn't really need the permission to access __getitem__ on the container but they can't access the views because the __getitem__ call will be tried anyway. I can explicitly make the URL use '@@viewname' and bypass the item traverser, but I don't like the @@s in the URL. I wonder whether adding Unauthorized to the KeyError would be reasonable. I think not. At least it should not convert Unauthorized into NotFound. If I can access a location (say, http://localhost/container/item) when I'm logged in, then if I try that as an anonymous user, I should get an authentication dialog rather than a 404 Not Found page. Marius Gedminas -- If nothing else helps, read the documentation. signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ 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] zc.testbrowser.real support for mozlab 0.1.9
I've checked in a branch with changes to the testbrowser.real code to
make it work with mozlab 0.1.9 (and firefox 3).
Hi Sebastian,
This is great. I spent all day yesterday trying to make this happen
and didn't get anywhere. Sometimes I wake up with a better idea as to
how to solve things, but I don't often wake up to find all the work's
been done!
I tried running the tests with Python 2.4. About half the time they
pass fine, and the other half fail something like this:
File doctest README.txt[40], line 1, in ?
browser.open('navigate.html')
File /Users/graham/development/patched_zc.testbrowser/src/zc/
testbrowser/real.py, line 201, in open
self.wait()
File /Users/graham/development/patched_zc.testbrowser/src/zc/
testbrowser/real.py, line 193, in wait
assert self.execute('tb_page_loaded;') == 'false'
AssertionError
though for varying pages with browser.open(). I don't understand what
could be causing it; why would that value be changed in between those
two lines? I guess the time.sleep() on line 191 implies that there's
something we might want to wait for. I increased it by 10x and only
got 1 failure out of 10, so I guess that helps.
Thanks,
Graham
___
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: Test runner: layers, subprocesses, and tear down
Benji York wrote: I'm working on making the zope.testing test runner run tests in parallelized subprocesses. I have some recent experience parallelising (and distributing across machines) test runs. This was in Java, with TestNG and Selenium, but we learned some interesting things. We basically cut a 45 minute test run to 10 minutes by distributing the tests across three machines, each running a full stack (Oracle, JBoss, Firefox) and Selenium Grid. I realise you're not trying to do anything quite as complex as that, but a parallel test runner ought to be extensible to support distribution across nodes in a grid. The main challenge there is to distribute deployment of the code to run, and to sync test setup so that all environments are identical. I suspect you'll find this out of scope to begin with, but I'd keep it in the back of your mind. You will likely need some way of declaring tests that have to run in series. Sometimes that's just for sanity's sake, other times it's a requirement due to shared resources. A nice way to do this is to make it possible to annotate tests to group them, and then to be able to declaratively configure some groups as serial. Any functional test that uses a shared external resource will require this. TestNG supports (as far as I recall): - Run all tests (methods) randomly and parallelise - Run groups of tests (classes or declaratively specified named groups) in parallel, but run tests within the groups sequentially - Run all tests in series (i.e. single-threaded) We should probably use test layers as the main grouping mechanism here. If you could declare a layer as can be run in parallel with other layers or tests in this layer run in series, that'd be pretty powerful. I'm not 100% sure how this works with layers that derive from one another, and where you'd have two layers with a shared base class, though. Parallisation can offer huge (!) speed increases, but it can also be hard to debug tests. I'd be tempted to let single threaded by the default, safe choice, and let people opt into parallisation only when they know what they are doing. Most test runs are quite quick anyway. Test result reporting can be difficult. You'll probably need to collect all failures with tracebacks and report at the end. For long running test suites, this may not be ideal, since it's helpful to get early warning, so if you can find a way to get test output to be atomically output, then that'd be nice. Debugging stuff that happens in parallel with pdb is also tricky. It must be easy to turn off parallel running and to run individual tests in a single process for each debugging. To make this work with Selenium grid, we ended up building some infrastructure to manage environments (i.e. an allocation of database, web server and so on), and locks on those environments. We'd spawn one thread for each environment and feed tests to those threads as fast as they could run them. Each test run then grabbed an environment on setup, executed, and then released the lock for another test. Oh, and please don't get rid of any tear-down. You'll definitely need it one day. Letting environments go dirty is generally troublesome, and gets only more difficult when you may have multiple threads trying to use those environments at once. I don't know how you've structured this, but I'd consider whether one layer could be shared across multiple threads/subprocesses, or if it's always a one-to-one thing. I realise this is somewhat rambling, but I hope it's useful in any case. :) Cheers, Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book ___ 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] Itemtraverser and Unauthorized vs Views
On Fri, 2008-07-04 at 02:10 +0300, Marius Gedminas wrote: On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 01:39:28PM +0200, Christian Theune wrote: [...] I can explicitly make the URL use '@@viewname' and bypass the item traverser, but I don't like the @@s in the URL. I wonder whether adding Unauthorized to the KeyError would be reasonable. I think not. At least it should not convert Unauthorized into NotFound. If I can access a location (say, http://localhost/container/item) when I'm logged in, then if I try that as an anonymous user, I should get an authentication dialog rather than a 404 Not Found page. Actually, in my case its, when logged in I can use: http://localhost/container/view When not logged in, I get an Unauthorized, although when accessing http://localhost/container/@@view I can go ahead as anonymous. IMHO the code merging the namespaces should be more careful about that. Christian -- Christian Theune · [EMAIL PROTECTED] gocept gmbh co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ 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 )
