I haven't noticed this yet, and have been heads down because of family issues and work, but I'll try to take a look this weekend if I can.
But on the face of it it seems like something we should definitely consider for 2.0.4. And I do think we should do a 2.0.4 release, it'll either happen in the next two weeks, or sometime towards new years as I'll be offline for a bit in the middle of December. --Mark Ramm On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:49 AM, Diez B. Roggisch <de...@web.de> wrote: > > Hi, > > we just stumbled over a peculiar behavior due to the use of Decoration objects > on actions. > > The problem is that in case of validation-errors, execution is delegated to an > error_handler (which might be the decorated action itself of course). The > responsible method is _handle_validation_errors > > Now the problem is that this call is a simple call that doesn't respect the > before_call and before_render/after_render hooks: > > if error_handler is None: > error_handler = controller > output = error_handler(*remainder, **dict(params)) > elif hasattr(error_handler, 'im_self') and error_handler.im_self != > controller: > output = error_handler(*remainder, **dict(params)) > else: > output = error_handler(controller.im_self, *remainder, > **dict(params)) > > My suggestion would be that the hook-handling-code that gets used in the > normal case is refactored into a method on DecoratedController itself, and > then used from both normal dispatch, and inside _handle_validation_errors. > > If this isn't done that way, we violate expectations of developers. > > So the first question: what do others think, do we need this? If the answer is > yes, read on ;) > > I'm personally not yet willing to go to 2.1 alpha. I need a stable 2.0 > version. Howere, the code in question is largely the same in both branches, > so I'm happy to develop two patches (or maybe one works for both, dunno). > > So the second question is: how about this regarding 2.0's maintenance state. > Is there a bug-fix release 2.0.4 coming, and if yes, would this be considered > a bug that should be backported? > > Diez > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TurboGears Trunk" group. > To post to this group, send email to turbogears-trunk@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > turbogears-trunk+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > > -- Mark Ramm-Christensen email: mark at compoundthinking dot com blog: www.compoundthinking.com/blog -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TurboGears Trunk" group. To post to this group, send email to turbogears-tr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/turbogears-trunk?hl=.
