-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Paul Winkler wrote: > On Thu, Apr 06, 2006 at 11:17:20AM +0200, Stefan H. Holek wrote: > >>For the record: I am still opposed to this change. It basically >>endows the request (as in self.REQUEST) with a getPhysicalPath >>method, and I have no idea what kind of side-effects this may have. > > > That's because there aren't any ;-) > > The only way you can ever hit REQUEST.getPhysicalPath is if > you specifically ask for it, which is obviously stupid; or if > the object you're wrapping doesn't terminate getPhysicalPath(). > > >>AFAICS your test suite is the only suite around that wants to request- >>wrap non-root objects. > > > I'd reprhase that as "... wants to request-wrap non-Zope2.app() > objects." > > FWIW, I didn't write it, and at the time those tests were added, > I believe they worked. This was using zope 2.8.something. > > I know who originally added those tests,
That would be me. I don't see anything wrong with using a non-Zope2-app object for unit testing: in fact, I think it is *superior* practice. Most tests don't need to have the whole shooting match of the Zope startup dance done, and in fact will be better unit tests if they are tested *outside* of that environment. > I was hired several months later and discovered some apparent bit-rot in > our test suite, i.e. a number of failures and errors, and one of the > principal points of failure was the issue we're discussing. > I'm not sure, but I'm guessing that the calls to getPhysicalPath() in > our app were added later, and whoever did that must've punted on > figuring out the resulting test issues. I think you will see lots of usage of the pattern in CMF and related products: the RequestTest and SecurityRequestTest base classes from CMFCore are used *everywhere*. The only caveat is that, if your tests *needs* to call 'getPhysicalPath' and get a "realistic" value, you need to ensure that the object used as the root does the Right Thing (TM). > >>There's nothing wrong with using your own >>makerequest for your own test suite, if this is what you want. But I >>don't think your use-case warrants changing Zope. > > > Noted, and that's a reasonable position. Does nobody else care? I don't beleive that "must be a Zope2.app()" is a real part of the contract of 'makerequest': "must be able to emulate one well enough for the rest of the test to succeed" is. > Using an Item or Folder as your root object for tests works fine except for > this one issue, so why not allow that? > My feeling is that setting up an app is unnecessary work when you > don't need one; for one thing, your test module needs to call > Zope2.startup() first; for another, afaict creating a Zope2.app is > a couple orders of magnitude slower than creating a SimpleItem. > > So maybe more people *should* use makerequest(NotAnApp) ;-) +1. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFENY+6+gerLs4ltQ4RAiB7AJ9s/Ntu6pkWN8nyiQ6ifNfCj7DgPwCgzg0g SwE3IdhmcFdEnDL5kIpIiYU= =26iW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Zope-Dev maillist - Zope-Dev@zope.org http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-dev ** No cross posts or HTML encoding! ** (Related lists - http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope-announce http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )
