On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Godefroid Chapelle <got...@bubblenet.be> wrote:
> Tres Seaver wrote:
>>>> - - Avoid shellling out to run repozo, but rather use its main(),
>>>> passing argv.
>>> I thought of this but decided to not go that way to test that repozo can
>>> actually run on a living database. Even if the code that was there still
>>> needs to be modified to achieve that goal.
>> Computing the path to repozo to run as a script was a bit wonky: I just
>> changed the 'main()' function to take optional arguments, which also
>> gave me more flexibility in how thigs run (e.g., turning off noisy output).
> I suspect I do not express myself correctly.
> I try to say that repozo should be tested against a database being
> mutated (the current test only exercise backups when the db is closed).
That would definitely be much better, but not needed to test Chris'
change I think.
In any case, you don't need to shell out to test repozo against a database
that is being modified. You could use threads, or you could write the database
records yourself to, for example, cause a repozo backup while there are partial
transaction records. I would prefer not to shell out.
> As far as I can understand, THE reason for repozo is to backup without
> stopping the ZODB.
One of 2 reasons. The other is incremental backups.
For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki:
ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org