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 k
[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" option
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 section n
[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 section name and database_name, but I'm not
>> sure wher
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 the
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