Jim Fulton wrote:
Each layer drops a savepoint in setUp and then rolls it back it in
tearDown. Likewise, the TestCase's setUp would drop a savepoint and
the tearDown would roll back to it.
This is a risky approach. If you have any software that does actual
commits,
you'll be hosed.
Not sure what you mean by that... The reason I want to use savepoints is
for ease of tearDown...
I suggest using demo storages instead. Demo storages will
also be faster.
...I'm already using DemoStorage.
Well, they are going to make any approach like this difficult. That's why
I avoid them.
Still leaves me wondering why they were implemented :-S
They seem ideal for this kind of thing...
3. savepoints are really slow :-(
ditto.
I'm guessing the savepoint speed is going to be dictated by the
underlying storage? Which storage is your comment based on?
cheers,
Chris
--
Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting
- http://www.simplistix.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Zope3-dev mailing list
[email protected]
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
