Chris Withers wrote:
Florent Guillaume wrote:
Marks the object not changed, to allow ghostifying.
Ghostifies the object.
Updates the object's dict directly. This really shouldn't be called on a
ghost object, I believe it's illegal but not checked. I'm not sure what
Right, that's what I figured too, and I'm guessing ZODB now does "the
right thing", which breaks history copy because history copy has this
base._p_activate() # make sure we're not a ghost
Ah cool, never new that existed...
base.__setstate__(state) # change the state
base._p_changed = True # marke object as dirty
The "scrubbing" is not necessary, it's done by the __setstate__ C
implementation of Persistent.
Okay, in that case we can loose everything funky before the __setstate__
call, right? How sure are you that __setstate__ will override
everything? I see that Evan specifically added the code to do the
scrubbing in revision 20478, sadly he didn't write tests or explain why
it was necessary :-S
Well the C code is pretty clear, it does a PyDict_Clear before doing
PyDict_Update on the __dict__. Dunno how it was at the time Evan made
For the rest, sorry, I don't have time to dig for examples.
You don't need any transactions to at least test this sequence, only the
Persistent base class and a dummy connection can be involved.
Hmmm, this smells like deep fu of which I am not capable ;-)
Are there any examples of this?
To really test the history yes of course you'll need a full database.
tests do that.
Oh, do you know of any examples I can look at?
Florent Guillaume, Nuxeo (Paris, France) Director of R&D
+33 1 40 33 71 59 http://nuxeo.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org