Re: [Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 89 OK, 8 Failed, 1 Unknown
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/01/2011 06:58 AM, Zope Tests Summarizer wrote: > Subject: FAILED : ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.5 Linux 64bit > From: ccomb at free.fr > Date: Mon Jan 31 21:28:47 EST 2011 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030632.html > > Subject: FAILED : ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit > From: ccomb at free.fr > Date: Mon Jan 31 21:28:59 EST 2011 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030633.html > > Subject: FAILED : ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit > From: ccomb at free.fr > Date: Mon Jan 31 21:29:06 EST 2011 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030634.html These are the same build failures (due to a missing pin of zope.testbrowser?): the buildout step fails to create the 'test-zopeapp' script, but exits with RC 0:: - --- %< - Installing test-zopeapp. While: Installing test-zopeapp. Getting distribution for 'zope.testbrowser>=3.11'. Error: Picked: zope.testbrowser = 3.11.1 program finished with exit code 0 - --- %< - > Subject: FAILED : winbot / zope.annotation_py_265_32 > From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org > Date: Mon Jan 31 23:15:47 EST 2011 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030642.html This one blew up during bootstrap:: - --- %< - error: Download error for http://pypi.python.org/packages/source/z/zc.buildout/zc.buildout-1.5.2.tar.gz: [Errno 10060] A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond Traceback (most recent call last): File "c:\buildmaster\bootstrap.py", line 112, in ) == 0 AssertionError program finished with exit code 1 - --- %< - > Subject: UNKNOWN : Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.5 : Linux > From: Zope Tests > Date: Tue Feb 1 01:12:43 EST 2011 > URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-February/030669.html This one looks like a (transient) network failure:: - --- %< - Download error: [Errno 104] Connection reset by peer -- Some packages may not be found! Couldn't find index page for 'zope.location' (maybe misspelled?) Download error: [Errno 101] Network is unreachable -- Some packages may not be found! Getting distribution for 'zope.location==3.9.0'. While: Installing test. Getting distribution for 'zope.location==3.9.0'. Error: Couldn't find a distribution for 'zope.location==3.9.0'. - --- %< - Tres. - -- === Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tsea...@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design"http://palladion.com -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk1IOMcACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ47RwCglO9XYZ7VacR0vi4qFX13UMmY +gcAn2qIIABUE+xTXerrpCGnG1swipU/ =AHqu -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.testbrowser and WebTest (round 2)
On Tuesday, February 01, 2011, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote: > But I feel the important point about this regarding compatibility is not > the underlying technology, but the API, i. e. that > - zope.testbrowser.wsgi.Browser is a Testbrowser > - zope.testbrowser.wsgi.Layer with a method make_wsgi_app is there to > facilitate the test setup. > > I think as long as we preserve this API (which seems sound to me, but of > course I'm biased ;-), we're free to change stuff under the hood. +1 Regards, Stephan -- Entrepreneur and Software Geek Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter" ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.testbrowser and WebTest (round 2)
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote: > But I feel the important point about this regarding compatibility is not > the underlying technology, but the API, i. e. that > - zope.testbrowser.wsgi.Browser is a Testbrowser > - zope.testbrowser.wsgi.Layer with a method make_wsgi_app is there to > facilitate the test setup. > > I think as long as we preserve this API (which seems sound to me, but of > course I'm biased ;-), we're free to change stuff under the hood. +1 Compatibility is key. Note however that it's also harder than it looks, so gratuitous change will often bite you. That being said, I think you're on the right track here. -- Benji York ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
[Zope-dev] Zope Tests: 89 OK, 8 Failed, 1 Unknown
Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Jan 31 12:00:00 2011 UTC to Tue Feb 1 12:00:00 2011 UTC. There were 98 messages: 8 from Zope Tests, 4 from buildbot at pov.lt, 22 from buildbot at winbot.zope.org, 11 from ccomb at free.fr, 53 from jdriessen at thehealthagency.com. Test failures - Subject: FAILED : Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux From: buildbot at pov.lt Date: Mon Jan 31 21:02:41 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030629.html Subject: FAILED : ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.5 Linux 64bit From: ccomb at free.fr Date: Mon Jan 31 21:28:47 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030632.html Subject: FAILED : ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit From: ccomb at free.fr Date: Mon Jan 31 21:28:59 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030633.html Subject: FAILED : ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit From: ccomb at free.fr Date: Mon Jan 31 21:29:06 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030634.html Subject: FAILED : Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux From: buildbot at pov.lt Date: Mon Jan 31 22:02:34 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030635.html Subject: FAILED : winbot / z3c.rml_py_265_32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 22:50:10 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030641.html Subject: FAILED : winbot / zope.annotation_py_265_32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 23:15:47 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030642.html Subject: FAILED : winbot / z3c.coverage_py_265_32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 23:44:37 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030643.html Unknown --- Subject: UNKNOWN : Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.5 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 1 01:12:43 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-February/030669.html Tests passed OK --- Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-ubuntu64 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:09:12 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030601.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-ubuntu32 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:09:35 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030602.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1_win-py2.5 slave-win From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:11:39 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030603.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-ubuntu64 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:13:49 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030604.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-ubuntu32 From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:14:57 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030605.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1_win-py2.6 slave-win From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:18:59 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030606.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.6 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:20:58 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030607.html Subject: OK : Zope Buildbot / zopetoolkit-1.1-py2.5 slave-osx From: jdriessen at thehealthagency.com Date: Mon Jan 31 11:44:20 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030608.html Subject: OK : winbot / ztk_dev py_254_win32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 15:18:30 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030609.html Subject: OK : winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 15:27:15 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030610.html Subject: OK : winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 15:36:22 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030611.html Subject: OK : winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 15:44:09 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030612.html Subject: OK : winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 15:52:25 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030613.html Subject: OK : winbot / ztk_10 py_244_win32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 16:01:44 EST 2011 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2011-January/030614.html Subject: OK : winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 From: buildbot at winbot.zope.org Date: Mon Jan 31 16:10:10 EST 2011 U
Re: [Zope-dev] zope.testbrowser and WebTest (round 2)
* Wichert Akkerman [2011-01-31 09:46]: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:02:35AM +0100, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote: >> So I'm curious: What are the differences bewteen WebTest and >> wsgi_intercept? Is one preferable to the other? > > If I remember correctly WebTest wraps the WSGI app object directly and > does not require monkeypatching urllib. To send requests to the app > under testing you call WebTest post/get methods, which directly call the > WSGI app. Thanks for clarifying, that does indeed make sense. I guess I should have researched wsgi_intercept and WebTest in more detail. :/ * Brian Sutherland [2011-01-31 09:54]: > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 07:02:35AM +0100, Wolfgang Schnerring wrote: >> I'd very much like there to be *one* way of doing WSGI with the >> testbrowser, and at first blush I don't care whether that's WebTest or >> wsgi_intercept or whathaveyou, as long as it fulfills its purpose. > > We have already committed to wsgi_intercept integration for the long > term. It was released in zope.testbrowser 3.11 a few days ago, right? If > we are to have only one way to do this, then wsgi_intercept must be it. I definitely don't see this as set in stone, *at all*. Yes, we've had a release that uses wsgi_intercept for talking to WSGI apps. (And yes, we didn't ask anyone for their opinion on it, and I'm sorry about that. However, I guess the development process in the Zope community is an entirely different issue, sigh.) But I feel the important point about this regarding compatibility is not the underlying technology, but the API, i. e. that - zope.testbrowser.wsgi.Browser is a Testbrowser - zope.testbrowser.wsgi.Layer with a method make_wsgi_app is there to facilitate the test setup. I think as long as we preserve this API (which seems sound to me, but of course I'm biased ;-), we're free to change stuff under the hood. > But I'm ambivalent about only having one way to do things. I think > having both integrations in zope.testbrowser is not such a bad thing. > Having the test suite run over 2 different integrations is definitely > good. Maybe I'm missing something, but when I think about the task at hand from the client's perspective, then the only sentence that matters to me is, "give me a zope.testbrowser that talks to this WSGI callable". Which means a) I couldn't care less how that's done internally as long as it doesn't cause me any hassle and, more importantly b) I do *not* want to have to think about it and/or make a choice about the underlying mechanism. I want the library to have done that research (as we are doing right now). And to me this task seems straightforward enough to not warrant pluggability -- on the contrary, I feel it's so narrow in scope it outright *forbids* it (but again, I may be missing something). >> I'll gladly review your branch, but I'd like to know the motivation >> behind it. > > Only ~30% of the branch is the implementation of the WebTest connection. > > The other ~70% of the branch is a refactoring of the test suite. That's > where the reduction in test dependencies comes from. The test fixture on > the branch is a reasonably minimal WSGI application run via the WebTest > connection. I'd prefer if we treated this as two separate steps, then: a) improve the testbrwoser+wsgi story by replacing wsgi_intercept with WebTest b) extract the testbrowser part that talks to the Publisher As to (a), I'll still need to look at your code, but as I said I'm all in favour of using WebTest instead of wsgi_intercept. As to (b), I saw you moved the code to zope.app.testing. I have a few ideas in that area which I'll contact you off-list about. Wolfgang ___ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
