Baiju M wrote:
Log message for revision 72757:
Make sure including zope.app.zcmlfiles in configuration works.
I fail to see the point of this test. This is a doctest, I would at
least expect one line explaining why we need to test loading
Also, why does this need to be in zope.configuration? It seems wrong
introducing this kind of dependency, evne if it's just for testing.
I do realize that zope.configuration now has some code to support
backward compatibility of <include package="zope.app" />. *This* would
be something worthwile testing, I suppose, though perhaps in a way that
would prevent actually loading all of the zope.app configuration
(perhaps toggling the execution of ZCML actions to false would be a
This test loads a fair bit of stuff, pretty close to a functional test
setup. This has to be torn down (which is pretty hard to do, hence the
functional layers so far don't implement tearDown).
+ >>> context = config.ConfigurationMachine()
+ >>> xmlconfig.registerCommonDirectives(context)
+ >>> import zope.app.zcmlfiles
+ >>> xmlconfig.include(context, package=zope.app.zcmlfiles)
+ >>> xmlconfig.include(context, 'configure.zcml', zope.app.zcmlfiles)
+ >>> xmlconfig.include(context, 'ftesting.zcml', zope.app.zcmlfiles)
+ >>> xmlconfig.include(context, 'menus.zcml', zope.app.zcmlfiles)
+ >>> xmlconfig.include(context, 'meta.zcml', zope.app.zcmlfiles)
+ >>> try:
+ ... xmlconfig.include(context, 'file_not_exists.zcml',
+ ... except IOError, msg:
+ ... 'OK'
I think the preferred way to test for exceptions in doctests is:
>>> xmlconfig.include(context, 'file_not_exists.zcml',
Traceback (most recent call last):
http://worldcookery.com -- Professional Zope documentation and training
Next Zope 3 training at Camp5: http://trizpug.org/boot-camp/camp5
Zope3-dev mailing list