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
Zope3-dev@zope.org
Unsub: http://mail.zope.org/mailman/options/zope3-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to