Hello Christian, I'm sorry Christian. Points taken, I'll try to do better next time.
Actually the issue was an edge case. See my mail: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-January/030844.html Solution is to change: response = request.response publish(request) #do something with response to: request = publish(request) response = request.response #(or equivalent) The missing tests are missing, because it seemed not that easy to do it. I would appreciate some help. btw, all existing tests pass. Monday, February 4, 2008, 1:23:24 PM, you wrote: CT> Hi, CT> Adam Groszer schrieb: >> Log message for revision 83382: >> fix of 599 error on conflict error in request >> see: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2008-January/030844.html >> >> Changed: >> U zope.server/trunk/setup.py >> U zope.server/trunk/src/zope/server/ftp/publisher.py >> >> -=- >> Modified: zope.server/trunk/setup.py >> =================================================================== >> --- zope.server/trunk/setup.py 2008-02-01 15:08:00 UTC (rev 83381) >> +++ zope.server/trunk/setup.py 2008-02-01 15:19:32 UTC (rev 83382) >> @@ -30,10 +30,10 @@ >> long_description=open('README.txt').read(), >> >> packages=find_packages('src'), >> - package_dir = {'': 'src'}, >> + package_dir = {'': 'src'}, >> >> namespace_packages=['zope',], >> - >> + >> tests_require = ['zope.testing', >> 'zope.i18n', >> 'zope.component'], >> @@ -41,7 +41,8 @@ >> 'zope.interface', >> 'zope.publisher', >> 'zope.security', >> - 'zope.deprecation'], >> + 'zope.deprecation', >> + 'ZODB3'], >> include_package_data = True, >> zip_safe = False, >> entry_points = """ CT> Please try to avoid mixing mixing checkins with different purposes. This CT> whitespace change should be a separate checkin. >> Modified: zope.server/trunk/src/zope/server/ftp/publisher.py >> =================================================================== >> --- zope.server/trunk/src/zope/server/ftp/publisher.py 2008-02-01 >> 15:08:00 UTC (rev 83381) >> +++ zope.server/trunk/src/zope/server/ftp/publisher.py 2008-02-01 >> 15:19:32 UTC (rev 83382) >> @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ >> return self._execute(path, 'ls', split=False, filter=filter) >> >> def readfile(self, path, outstream, start=0, end=None): >> - return self._execute(path, 'readfile', >> + return self._execute(path, 'readfile', >> outstream=outstream, start=start, end=end) >> >> def lsinfo(self, path): >> @@ -108,9 +108,12 @@ >> >> # Note that publish() calls close() on request, which deletes the >> # response from the request, so that we need to keep track of it. >> - response = request.response >> - publish(request) >> - return response.getResult() >> + # agroszer: 2008.feb.1.: currently the above seems not to be true >> + # request will KEEP the response on close() >> + # even more if a retry occurs in the publisher, >> + # the response will be LOST, so we must accept the returned request >> + request = publish(request) >> + return request.response.getResult() CT> Same comment as previously, please avoid this style of annotation. Also, CT> it doesn't look like the issue is actually finally resolved as you say CT> `seems`. CT> SVN tracks who edited what and when, the statement of your name and the CT> change date isn't necessary. CT> Again, a test case is missing. CT> Please review your other related checkins as well. CT> Christian -- Best regards, Adam Groszer mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Quote of the day: The attacker must vanquish; the defender need only survive. _______________________________________________ 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 )