November 2006 - Zope-Dev

Zope Tests: 8 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 18 Nov '06

18 Nov '06

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Nov 17 12:00:00 2006 UTC to Sat Nov 18 12:00:00 2006 UTC. There were 9 messages: 9 from Zope Unit Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=2) : Zope-2.8 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:35:06 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006598.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:27:35 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006593.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:29:05 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006594.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:30:36 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006595.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:32:06 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006596.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:33:36 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006597.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:36:36 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006599.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:38:06 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006600.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Nov 17 21:39:37 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006601.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-Checkins] SVN: Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/ fix #2235 for real now
by Leonardo Rochael Almeida 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Hi Chris, Em Qui, 2006-11-16 às 07:33 +0000, Chris Withers escreveu: > Leonardo Rochael Almeida wrote: > > @@ -615,8 +615,8 @@ > > def getobject(self, rid, REQUEST=None): > > """Return a cataloged object given a 'data_record_id_' > > """ > > - obj = self.aq_parent.unrestrictedTraverse(self.getpath(rid)) > > - if not obj: > > + obj = self.aq_parent.unrestrictedTraverse(self.getpath(rid), None) > > + if obj is None: > > Please revert this change. You've changed the semantics of this > statement and it will now mask errors in traversing to the path. > > This is bad... I agree with you the semantics have changed, but I argue that they've changed to what they were intended to be in the first place :-) This is the full method before my changes: def getobject(self, rid, REQUEST=None): """Return a cataloged object given a 'data_record_id_' """ obj = self.aq_parent.unrestrictedTraverse(self.getpath(rid)) if not obj: if REQUEST is None: REQUEST=self.REQUEST obj = self.resolve_url(self.getpath(rid), REQUEST) return obj Here it is, after my changes def getobject(self, rid, REQUEST=None): """Return a cataloged object given a 'data_record_id_' """ obj = self.aq_parent.unrestrictedTraverse(self.getpath(rid), None) if obj is None: if REQUEST is None: REQUEST=self.REQUEST obj = self.resolve_url(self.getpath(rid), REQUEST) return obj Traversing with a default argument will only mask traversal errors, not any other errors that might happen during traversing. If the intent was not to mask any errors at all, even the ones normal to traversal, then the "if not obj" that was there before would only be triggered in situations where there it was a bug: an object was found but it's got a .__len__ or .__nonzero__ method. In the version with my changes, but with the old unrestrictedTraverse call, the "if obj is None" would only ever be reached in the pathological situation where the attribute at the end of the path is None. Which means the ".resolve_url(self.getpath(rid), REQUEST)" would hardly ever be called at all. I'm open to reversing the unrestrictedTraverse call to the old semantics, as soon as we agree what those where, so I propose 2 options and I'll implement whatever this list decides: A) Keep my changes, but use a marker "object()" instead of None for the "default" parameter of the .unrestrictedTraverse() call. B) Reverse my changes, but also remove the "if not obj" block, which is buggy whichever way you look at it with the old unrestrictedTraverse call. Which one should it be? Cheers, Leo -- Leonardo Rochael Almeida Enfold Systems http://www.enfoldsystems.com phone. +1.713.942.2377 Ext 215 fax. +1.832.201.8856

2 2

Zope Tests: 8 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Nov 16 12:00:00 2006 UTC to Fri Nov 17 12:00:00 2006 UTC. There were 9 messages: 9 from Zope Unit Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=2) : Zope-2.8 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:35:48 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006589.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:28:18 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006584.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:29:48 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006585.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:31:18 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006586.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:32:48 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006587.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:34:18 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006588.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:37:19 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006590.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:38:49 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006591.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Nov 16 21:40:19 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006592.html

1 0

Bug in Shared/DC/ZRDB/DA.py
by Chris Withers 17 Nov '06

17 Nov '06

Hi All, Around line 42 of DA.py, we've got the following: try: from IOBTree import Bucket except: Bucket=lambda:{} Given that IOBTree has been dead for some time now, can we remove this and replace instances of Bucket() with {} or is there a more appropriate object we can use from the BTrees package? cheers, Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Zope & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

2 2

zodb session errors
by Miles Waller 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

Hi, We have a site that we've recently upgraded from 2.7.6 to 2.8.8 which has started exhibiting higher-than-average session errors. The site consists of 2 zeo clients on 2 separate machines, with a shared session tempstorage mounted via the zeo server. I expect some errors with sessions as a matter of course, but was trying to make the user experience a little less 'severe'. Traceback (innermost last): * Module ZPublisher.Publish, line 114, in publish <snip template-rendering related traceback> * Module DocumentTemplate.DT_Util, line 197, in eval __traceback_info__: portal_basket * Module <string>, line 1, in <expression> * Module Products.WFPlugins.ShopTool.BasketTool, line 74, in oneLineDetails * Module Products.WFPlugins.ShopTool.BasketTool, line 54, in getBasket line 54 reads: sess = self.session_data_manager.getSessionData(create=create) * Module Products.Sessions.SessionDataManager, line 93, in getSessionData * Module Products.Sessions.SessionDataManager, line 180, in _getSessionDataObject * Module Products.Transience.Transience, line 846, in new_or_existing * Module Products.Transience.Transience, line 449, in __setitem__ KeyError: 1163679740 I don't understand is what's happening here (and in turn what to do about it). It looks as if the session machinery detects there is not any sessiondata set up for this particular browser, goes to set one up and then can't find the current timeslice to put the new sessiondata into. Does this mean that the timeslice has changed in-between working it out and assigning the sessiondata to it? Or that the timeslice has been garbage-collected in-between? Also, can the problem be solved (without side-effects!) by changing the period to match the timeout time - i.e. so it can always find the current timeslice? Thanks for any wisdom! Miles

1 1

Installer for Windows - Status
by Sidnei da Silva 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

Hi there, I've managed to get the Installers for Windows back into shape, using our internal build system/buildbot. You can follow the progress of the builds here: http://buildbot.enfoldsystems.com/zope/ New builds will appear on this page once they are ready: http://www.enfoldsystems.com/downloads.html The known-good build is 6511+, which has not appeared on the downloads page yet. It should show up there in 2-3h at most. Please send your comments/feedback/critics. -- Sidnei da Silva Enfold Systems http://enfoldsystems.com Fax +1 832 201 8856 Office +1 713 942 2377 Ext 214

2 3

Zope Tests: 8 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 16 Nov '06

16 Nov '06

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Nov 15 12:00:00 2006 UTC to Thu Nov 16 12:00:00 2006 UTC. There were 9 messages: 9 from Zope Unit Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=2) : Zope-2.8 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:32:16 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006580.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:24:46 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006575.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:26:16 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006576.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:27:46 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006577.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:29:16 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006578.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:30:46 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006579.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:33:46 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006581.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:35:16 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006582.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Nov 15 21:36:46 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006583.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 8 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 15 Nov '06

15 Nov '06

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Nov 14 12:00:00 2006 UTC to Wed Nov 15 12:00:00 2006 UTC. There were 9 messages: 9 from Zope Unit Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=2) : Zope-2.8 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:34:08 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006571.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:26:37 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006566.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:28:07 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006567.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:29:37 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006568.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:31:07 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006569.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:32:38 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006570.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:35:38 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006572.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:37:08 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006573.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Tue Nov 14 21:38:38 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006574.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 8 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 14 Nov '06

14 Nov '06

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Nov 13 12:00:00 2006 UTC to Tue Nov 14 12:00:00 2006 UTC. There were 9 messages: 9 from Zope Unit Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=2) : Zope-2.8 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:34:45 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006562.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:27:14 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006557.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:28:44 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006558.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:30:14 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006559.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:31:45 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006560.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:33:15 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006561.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:36:15 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006563.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:37:45 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006564.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Mon Nov 13 21:39:15 EST 2006 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2006-November/006565.html

1 0

hanging zeo clients
by M. Krainer 13 Nov '06

13 Nov '06

Hi! We have one ZEO server that handles 3 FileStorages and 8 ZEO clients connecting to the ZEO server. Sometimes a client hangs and does no longer handle incoming connections. The ZEO server log shows in such a case, that the (hanging) client initiates a new connection 2006-11-12T10:30:39 INFO ZEO.StorageServer (3958) new connection ('10.x.x.x', 32803): <ManagedServerConnection ('10.x.x.x', 32803)> If I'm correct, the next that should happen is a log entry from the ZEO server that he received a handshake from the client. Something like 2006-11-12T11:12:46 INFO ZEO.zrpc.Connection(S) (10.x.x.x:36805) received handshake 'Z303' This never happens. I have to restart the client. Has anyone an explanation for the hanging clients? (We're using Zope-2.8.8, Python-2.4.2) Markus

1 0