Paul Winkler wrote:
Using an Item or Folder as your root object for tests works fine except for
this one issue, so why not allow that?
My feeling is that setting up an app is unnecessary work when you
don't need one; for one thing, your test module needs to call
Zope2.startup() first; for
On Fri, Apr 07, 2006 at 02:35:57PM +0200, Florent Guillaume wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
Using an Item or Folder as your root object for tests works fine except for
this one issue, so why not allow that?
My feeling is that setting up an app is unnecessary work when you
don't need one; for one
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 06:01:30PM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
Paul Winkler wrote:
I know who originally added those tests,
That would be me.
I was hoping you'd pop in :-)
I don't see anything wrong with using a non-Zope2-app
object for unit testing: in fact, I think it is *superior*
For the record: I am still opposed to this change. It basically
endows the request (as in self.REQUEST) with a getPhysicalPath
method, and I have no idea what kind of side-effects this may have.
AFAICS your test suite is the only suite around that wants to request-
wrap non-root objects.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Paul Winkler wrote:
On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:17:20AM +0200, Stefan H. Holek wrote:
For the record: I am still opposed to this change. It basically
endows the request (as in self.REQUEST) with a getPhysicalPath
method, and I have no idea what
