February 2009 - Zope-Dev

z3c.form 2.0
by Dan Korostelev 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

So here's a little review on current status of z3c.form. Mostly based on items from CHANGES.txt for 2.0 release :) I may forget something, so I'll reply to myself if something suddenly comes in my mind. And sorry for my English, i'm quite in hurry now. :-) FileWidget - It doesn't clear the bytes value if no new file is uploaded now, which is nice. But there's also should be a way to clear current value if the field is not required. I've added that to the TODOS.txt. I think that should be done before release to make the widget actually functional out of box. TextLinesWidget - Works. I've fixed a case when a field has tuple in its _type, so it hopefully will work in any case now. MultiWidget - Probably needs some review as it does the updateWidgets thing on "value" property setting, which seems fishy to me. It works however. I've added the check for min_length and max_length and conditional buttons in the browser version. One thing I'd like to see is that it generate a default number of input rows based on field's minimal length if there's any. Also, another thing that would be nice is to have a way to reorder values for orderable fields. However this can wait for next release. I've added that to the TODOS.txt. ObjectWidget/ObjectMultiWidget - ??? I didn't checked that out, so it would be nice if its author reviewied it and wrote here about its status. Source support - Seems to work fine. I've checked that out in my sandbox instance with zc.sourcefactory's context-less and context-based sources. However, there was some backward-incompatible refactorings (class renames) done to sequence data converters that breaks the z3c.pt benchmarking suite. This may also break end-users' code so we probably want to fix the compatibility. z3c.pt support - ??? I don't use the z3c.pt myself, so I didn't really checked that out. As I said before, the benchmarking suite is borked. Also, there's a strange bug with macros (see below). Also, we need to migrate to z3c.ptcompat instead of z3c.pt.compat (UPDATE: the merge was done while I was writing this). Tests - All are passing. However there was a failure with z3c.pt, I've described before. I don't know what's wrong there, but found a little workaround. See my comment in the tests/simple_groupedit.pt file. (UPDATE: tests are now borked again as a result of merging z3c.ptcompat branch while I was writing this). Translations - I've updated the template and the russian translation to be complete. I don't expect any msgid changes, so I think translators should review their translations and commit them right now :) Also, I wanted to add browser widget attributes like "klass" or "onclick" to adaptable values. This will require some work to make browser widgets automatically add their adaptable values to _adapterValueAttributes before calling parent's "update" method. I'm not sure that I'll be doing that very soon as it isn't very important. So this is definetely not a reason to wait with the release. One more thing I'd like to do is to add "klass" and "id" to the forms themselves so one could easily customize the visual appeal of the forms. But it's probably should be done in z3c.formui's subclasses and not in z3c.form's base classes. I'd like to hear the community opinion on that though. -- WBR, Dan Korostelev

7 26

Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Feb 11 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Thu Feb 12 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 21:06:29 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011088.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.7 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 20:51:44 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011081.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 20:53:49 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011082.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 20:55:49 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011083.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 20:57:49 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011084.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 21:00:20 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011085.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 21:02:20 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011086.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Feb 11 21:04:21 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011087.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] z3c.form 2.0
by Wolfgang Schnerring 12 Feb '09

12 Feb '09

* Dan Korostelev <nadako(a)gmail.com> [2009-02-09 19:08]: > Source support - Seems to work fine. I've checked that out in my > sandbox instance with zc.sourcefactory's context-less and > context-based sources. I'd very much like to put in a little bit of flexibility when looking up widgets for source-based fields: zope.formlib looks up the widget for an IChoice field by requiring a multi-adapter for (field, field.source) instead of just the field, thus allowing you to differentiate widgets for different kinds of sources. I'd like to introduce this to z3c.form as well (see attached patch). Would it be alright with you for me to commit this to trunk (to then go into the release)? Wolfgang -- Wolfgang Schnerring · ws(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

3 3

Where should I update the translation messages?
by Takeshi Yamamoto 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hello, I would like to update Japanese translation messages of ZMI of Zope 3. I used to do it with launchpad.net but it seems to be gone. Where should I update the translation messages? Regards. Takeshi Yamamoto

3 5

Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Feb 10 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Feb 11 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:58:35 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011080.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.7 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:44:00 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011073.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:46:05 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011074.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:48:05 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011075.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:50:06 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011076.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:52:09 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011077.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:54:09 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011078.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Tue Feb 10 20:56:09 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011079.html

1 0

release of lovely.remotetask?
by Christian Zagrodnick 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi, I'd like to create a new release of lovely.remotetask. Could somebody give me (zagy) the pypi rights? Thanks, -- Christian Zagrodnick · cz(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 4 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

1 0

Lower default socket timeout for buildout?
by Christian Theune 11 Feb '09

11 Feb '09

Hi, in the last week I noticed that reducing buildout's socket timeout to something relatively low (3-5 seconds) made a lot of buildouts go much faster. It looks like various package metadata points off to bad servers that hang. I haven't had a buildout fail on me because of setting such a low timeout -- I only got annoyed when running with the longer default. I wonder whether it might be an idea to lower the default in general? Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 7 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

4 7

ZCML implementations: where should they go
by Martijn Faassen 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

Hi there, We've recently had some discussions on where to place the implementation of various ZCML directives. This post is to try to summarize the issue and analyze the options we have. Right now ZCML directives are implemented in packages that contain other implementation. For example, zope.component implements various ZCML directives, and zope.security implements some more. In the case of zope.component, a special [zcml] extras dependency section is declared. If the ZCML dependencies are asked for, using zope.component will suddenly pull in a much larger list of dependencies than the original zope.component dependency list. The ZCML directives are component-related, but do offer extra options that need bits from the wider Zope 3 framework, such as the security infrastructure. In the case of zope.security, this isn't the case. As far as I can see, it doesn't declare any dependency beyond zope.configuration to allow it to implement its ZCML directives. The dependency situation for the ZCML implementations in zope.component doesn't appear ideal. It was therefore proposed to move the ZCML implementations to another package. This could be a new package, or it could be created. Following up on that, it was considered we should move *all* directives from the packages that implement them now into special packages. This would allow some packages to lose the dependency on zope.configuration, which is a relatively minor gain. We have several ways to go: a) continue with the current extra dependencies situation like in zope.component, and in fact clean up other packages that define ZCML to declare ZCML extra dependencies. b) pull out all ZCML implementations from where they are now and put them in special ZCML implementation packages. We could for instance have zcml.component, or zope.component_zcml, or zope.configuration.component. We had a bit of a side-tracked discussion about naming and namespace packages here. c) pull out only those ZCML implementations that cause extra dependencies beyond zope.configuration. So, we extract the bits of zope.component into a new package, but we don't extract bits from zope.security. I personally don't like extras. I think the ideal situation would be if packages had *no* extras at all (even test extras), as it complicates reasoning about the dependency structure. I think with improved structuring of the dependency graph, a package should have enough in its implementation dependencies to implement its tests. We've already experienced some of that last week at the sprint. For ZCML, with improved structuring of the dependency graph a package should only need zope.configuration as an extra package to implement ZCML. For that reason, a) is not really an option for me. That leaves b) and c). I think for now we should go with c), as it's the smallest step forward that will help clean up things. That is, we either find and appropriate package that makes sense for the ZCML implementations in zope.component, or we create a new package. Of course if we create a new package we still have a naming discussion ahead and I risk sparking another naming discussion (as it's easy to have an opinion about names). So, what do people think about option c)? Regards, Martijn

10 21

Zope Tests: 7 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Feb 9 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Feb 10 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 21:03:04 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011072.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.7 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 20:48:22 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011065.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 20:50:26 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011066.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 20:52:27 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011067.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 20:54:27 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011068.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 20:56:38 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011069.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.5.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 20:58:38 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011070.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Feb 9 21:00:40 EST 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-February/011071.html

1 0

Planning for Zope 3.5
by Stephan Richter 10 Feb '09

10 Feb '09

Hi all, now that we have Zope 3.4.0 finally behind us, let's look forward. As I said in the release notes, I am really willing to switch to a 6 months release cycle again. I think there are three areas that we can work on: - Python 2.6 support. I think this should be straight forward. We have to update packages to not use Python 2.6 keywords and review the AST changes. - Dependency reduction. Well, we are in the middle of this work already. - Improve project setup As Shane pointed out, it is hard to get started. The solution could be a combination of documentation and tools, like zopeproject. I am going to setup a Zope 3.5 development KGS shortly. Jim has already created the directory for me on the server. Thoughts? Regards, Stephan -- Stephan Richter Web Software Design, Development and Training Google me. "Zope Stephan Richter"

6 7