August 2009 - Zope-Dev

zope.testing 3.8 fails in mysterious ways
by Martin Aspeli 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

Hi, I'm running the plone.z3cform tests in a Zope 2.10 instance with zope.testing 3.8 installed. All other tests seem to work OK, but with plone.z3cform's tests, I get: $ ./bin/instance test -s plone.z3cform Running tests at level 1 Running plone.z3cform.testing_zcml_layer tests: Set up plone.z3cform.testing_zcml_layer in 0.972 seconds. Running: .......................... Ran 26 tests with 0 failures and 0 errors in 0.219 seconds. Running zope.testing.testrunner.layer.UnitTests tests: Tear down plone.z3cform.testing_zcml_layer ... not supported Exception in thread Thread-1: Traceback (most recent call last): File "/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.4/lib/python2.4/threading.py", line 442, in __bootstrap self.run() File "/opt/local/Library/Frameworks/Python.framework/Versions/2.4/lib/python2.4/threading.py", line 422, in run self.__target(*self.__args, **self.__kwargs) File "/Users/optilude/.buildout/eggs/zope.testing-3.8.0-py2.4.egg/zope/testing/testrunner/runner.py", line 418, in spawn_layer_in_subprocess while nfail > 0: UnboundLocalError: local variable 'nfail' referenced before assignment Total: 26 tests, 0 failures, 0 errors in 5.626 seconds. The tests are here: http://svn.zope.org/repos/main/plone.z3cform/trunk/plone/z3cform/tests.py Any ideas? Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

7 10

Zope Tests: 7 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 12 Aug '09

12 Aug '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Tue Aug 11 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Wed Aug 12 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Aug 12 04:33:49 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012274.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Aug 12 04:37:49 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012275.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Aug 12 04:39:49 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012276.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Aug 12 04:41:49 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012277.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Aug 12 04:43:50 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012278.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Aug 12 04:45:50 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012279.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Wed Aug 12 04:47:50 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012280.html

1 0

List of packages in the ZTK
by Fabio Tranchitella 11 Aug '09

11 Aug '09

Hello, it is evident that there is no consensus on the list of packages that are part of the Zope Toolkit. As Gary suggested me, it looks like the concept of ZTK is different for each developer and it is more or less "the packages I use and I care about". We need a policy to define the ZTK in an explicit way, otherwise we will never get a *real* ZTK KGS that can be used to build applications and the whole concept of ZTK will always be fuzzy. Christian prepared a list of packages which is available here: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/about/packages.html I propose a (very) simple policy, which we can use to improve the current situation: * a package is part of the ZTK if the following criteria are met: - It has at least N zope developers (with commit rights) who explicitly expressed interest in maintaining the package (because they use it in their projects, for example); N > 1, at least; - All its dependencies (excluding testing dependencies) are part of the ZTK; * we have to ensure, using automated testing, that each package: - has no test failures; - does not introduce test failures in any of the other ZTK packages; * the ZTK KGS only includes the packages that are part of the ZTK; we will provide an extended KGS (which uses the ZTK KGS) with more packages if needed. I would like to add a new column to the table in the aforementioned page listing the developers who are interested in maintaining the package. Ideally, in a couple of weeks we will have a better overview of what does the ZTK mean to each of us. Ideas? Comments? -- Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it _____________________________________________________________________ 1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564

6 17

Zope Tests: 7 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 11 Aug '09

11 Aug '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Mon Aug 10 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Tue Aug 11 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Aug 10 20:53:15 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012267.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Aug 10 20:57:15 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012268.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Aug 10 20:59:16 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012269.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Aug 10 21:01:16 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012270.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Aug 10 21:03:16 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012271.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Aug 10 21:05:16 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012272.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Mon Aug 10 21:07:16 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012273.html

1 0

Broken Objects in BtreeFolder
by Patrick Gerken 10 Aug '09

10 Aug '09

Hi, we had all kinds of funny behaviour that all was rooted in a bad object in a BTreeFolder. When calling folder.objectIds() I get the id of the object in question, when I call folder[object_id] I get a Key Error. Stepping into the code with the debugger, it looked like the Tree stores the objects in a dict grouped by type. I found out, that the objects in question all were of a type that is not available in the portal, and should not. So I added the product with the code for the type and restarted, but I still could not access the objects in question. The object can not be deleted. I managed to solve the worst problem, by creating a new object in that folder with the same id. Now only this new object can be reached, but the old object is still there, cause the object count, shown in the zmi, increased by one. Also, deleting this new object with the same id brings back the old object with the same id. I am out of ideas how to clean up the database. I also don't know how this happened in the first place. Therefore I can not provide a description of how to reproduce the problem. I am more interested atm how to clean up the screwed up zodb. How can I really get rid of the object? Best regards, Patrick

1 0

Zope Tests: 7 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 10 Aug '09

10 Aug '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Aug 9 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Mon Aug 10 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Aug 9 20:52:58 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012260.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Aug 9 20:56:58 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012261.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Aug 9 20:58:59 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012262.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Aug 9 21:00:59 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012263.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Aug 9 21:02:59 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012264.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Aug 9 21:04:59 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012265.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Aug 9 21:06:59 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012266.html

1 0

Zope 2.12.0b4 released
by Andreas Jung 10 Aug '09

10 Aug '09

I just released Zope 2.12.0 beta 4 http://pypi.python.org/pypi/Zope2/2.12.0b4 Andreas

2 3

Zope Tests: 3 OK, 4 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 09 Aug '09

09 Aug '09

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Aug 8 12:00:00 2009 UTC to Sun Aug 9 12:00:00 2009 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Aug 8 20:59:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012255.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Aug 8 21:03:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012257.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Aug 8 21:05:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012258.html Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.2 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Aug 8 21:07:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012259.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Aug 8 20:53:10 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012253.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Aug 8 20:57:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012254.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Aug 8 21:01:11 EDT 2009 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2009-August/012256.html

1 0

Optional integration need not introduce dependencies
by Jim Fulton 08 Aug '09

08 Aug '09

In discussing dependencies, as we try to clean up dependencies of Zope (especially ZTK) projects, I've noticed a pattern that I think deserves some special handling. Often, a module (including a ZCML file) within a project provides an implementation of an interface defined by an external package or an adapter of a class or interface defined in the external package. If the module is optional and exists solely to integrate with the external API, then the external project need not be a dependency. Why? Because an application won't use this module unless it already uses the external project. For example, lots of projects provide publisher views or zcml configuration directives. As long as these are in optional modules or ZCML files, then dependencies on zope.publisher or zope.configuration aren't necessary, as no one will use these modules or zcml files unless they're already using zope.publisher or zope.configuration. Again, this assumes that these modules are optional. For example, if a project's configuration file, configure.zcml registers views or includes a configuration file that registers views, then the dependency on zope.publisher is not optional. Let's look at a more specific example. zope.app.publisher provides some xmlrpc view registrations for zope.container in xmlrpc/configure.zcml. If the xmlrpc module was optional, or if these container registrations were conditedl [1]_ on zope.container having been installed, then zope.app.publisher wouldn't need to depend on zope.container [2]_. As it stands though, one can't include the main configuration for zope.app.publisher without also configuring the container xmlrpc views, so zope.container is required. Jim .. [1] We can make these registrations conditional on zope.container like this: <configure condition="installed zope.container" > <view for="zope.container.interfaces.IItemContainer" type="zope.publisher.interfaces.xmlrpc.IXMLRPCRequest" provides="zope.publisher.interfaces.xmlrpc.IXMLRPCPublisher" factory="zope.container.traversal.ItemTraverser" permission="zope.Public" /> <view for="zope.container.interfaces.IReadContainer" type="zope.publisher.interfaces.xmlrpc.IXMLRPCRequest" provides="zope.publisher.interfaces.xmlrpc.IXMLRPCPublisher" factory="zope.container.traversal.ContainerTraverser" permission="zope.Public" /> </configure> .. [2] This assumes we could get rid of the zope.container import in browser/tests/test_directoryresource, which I strongly suspect we can.) -- Jim Fulton

3 3

Simplifying dependencies of zope.app.publisher
by Fabio Tranchitella 08 Aug '09

08 Aug '09

Hello, I'm sorry if I am flooding the list with all my requests/messages, but I don't want to introduce changes without approval of more experienced zope developers. I was analyzing zope.app.publisher, and I found that it would be possible to remove its dependency on zope.container because the latter is only used in zope/app/publisher/xmlrpc/configure.zcml to declare thee views like this: <view for="zope.container.interfaces.IItemContainer" type="zope.publisher.interfaces.xmlrpc.IXMLRPCRequest" provides="zope.publisher.interfaces.xmlrpc.IXMLRPCPublisher" factory="zope.container.traversal.ItemTraverser" permission="zope.Public" /> I think these snippets should me moved to zope.container's configure.zcml, where we already have other traversers. Do you agree with this change? -- Fabio Tranchitella http://www.kobold.it Free Software Developer and Consultant http://www.tranchitella.it _____________________________________________________________________ 1024D/7F961564, fpr 5465 6E69 E559 6466 BF3D 9F01 2BF8 EE2B 7F96 1564

4 7