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
happens anyway.

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 bug ;-)

  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 his comment.

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. Many
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   [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:

ZODB-Dev mailing list  -

Reply via email to