Op 29-09-15 om 15:24 schreef yuppie:
Hi Maurits,

Maurits van Rees wrote:
But in the tests I explicitly test what would happen if the base profile
itself has a dependency, although this makes no sense to me.  In this
case the base profile would be the second in the chain.

why are you testing features that don't make sense to you? Are the names
BASE and EXTENSION not clear enough? Why would someone expect that you
can use an EXTENSION profile as the base and extend it with a BASE profile?

What does not make sense to me, may still make sense to you or someone else. One reason for adding tests is seeing what happens not in the normal mode that we design this for, but in corner cases.

The test is also an easier way to mimic another corner case. When extension profile A extends both base profile B and extension profile C, the base profile B can end up on the second spot in the chain. So I'd like to have a test that covers this. Mostly, I don't actually care that much what exactly happens in this case, as long as this does not result in a traceback. Which we now know.

Why should we purge the versions if the code that purges the old
configuration is never reached?
> (...)
> Your updated pull request still purges versions if we depend on a base
> profile, but don't (re-)apply it. That's not what I would expect.

Ah, right, I overlooked this possibility in your earlier message. I have now moved the version purging after the BeforeProfileImportEvent, as you suggested.


Maurits van Rees: http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Zest Software: http://zestsoftware.nl

Zope-CMF maillist  -  Zope-CMF@zope.org

See https://bugs.launchpad.net/zope-cmf/ for bug reports and feature requests

Reply via email to