February 2012 - Zope-Dev

zope.intid and zope.keyreference.interfaces.NotYet exception (patch)
by Cykooz 04 Jul '12

04 Jul '12

Hi, I created a patch for a package zope.intid that almost completely solves the problem with the zope.keyreference.interfaces.NotYet exception. I implemented a deferred indexing of objects added to the container which is not connected to the ZODB. As soon as the container is added to the ZODB - all deferred objects will be indexed. I also added a marker IIntIdsDisabled for marking objects that must not be indexed. I would be grateful if someone could look at my changes and merge them into the main branch. My fork of zope.intid - https://bitbucket.org/cykooz/zope.intid/src PS: Sorry for my English. ------------------- Cykooz (Kirill Kuzminykh)

7 12

Zope 4 release management
by Laurence Rowe 12 Jun '12

12 Jun '12

Along with David Glick, I would like to volunteer for the Zope 4 release management role, where I would take responsibility for producing the initial release of Zope 4 and David would then take over for the maintenance releases. In doing so, I thought it would be helpful to set out our understanding of the mission of Zope 4. If accepted I'll work to produce a first draft of a roadmap based on the outcome of the recent sprints and discussions on this mailing list. Mission ------- Zope 4 will be the first of several releases that seek to simplify our software stack. Over the years Zope 2 grew through the adoption of new technologies, notably Zope 3, but rarely removed older ways of doing things. Below, 'Zope 4' refers to the series of releases including Zope 5, 6, etc. Over the series of releases, Zope 4 will progressively remove more and more software as we transition to using software components shared with other Python web frameworks. It is as important to state what Zope 4 *is not* as what it should be: * Zope 4 will not seek to be of interest to those developing new applications. They should instead look to projects such as Pyramid that build on the experience and technologies of Zope without regard for the backwards compatibility concerns that will constrain Zope 4. * Zope 4 will not seek to innovate in itself but encourage innovation in software components shared with the wider Python web community. * Zope 4 will not move so quickly that it becomes impossible to make Plone, its main consumer, work with it. * But neither will Zope 4 seek to retain backwards compatibility at any cost. As the basis of Plone 4, Zope 2.13 will see maintenance releases as long as Plone 4 is supported. * Zope 4 will not have a release cycle independent of Plone. Zope 4 only exists as a transitional path for Zope 2 based applications and experience has shown that Zope 2 releases not used in any Plone release do not receive the same level of ongoing maintenance. Development Process ------------------- We want to encourage all features to be developed on separate feature branches so we can maintain a stable trunk. Before these feature branches are merged they should be posted to the mailing list for review. This process will necessitate a lot of merging, so I want to propose that we move to Git for development (something we found very helpful at our recent San Francisco Zope 4 sprint.) I don't have any opinion on where the canonical repository should be hosted - I know some people have strong opinions that this should be on Zope Foundation controlled hardware. If that's to be the case then we will need the svn.zope.org maintainers to setup a shared git repository on that machine. I think mirroring to github (and/or launchpad in future) will be the simplest way to provide an anonymously accessible and web browsable copy. Laurence

17 32

Re: [Zope-dev] experimental.broken - Graceful handling of broken interfaces and components in the ZODB
by Ross Patterson 11 Apr '12

11 Apr '12

I've done some more work on this and I've gotten the component registrations fully working now with one exception that I'm having real trouble with. I'd like some help with that, more below. I'm also a bit more clear on what might be appropriate to bring back into zope.interface and I'd like feedback on that. Currently interfaces are pickled as globals. Given their centrality in any ZCA application, I think they should be pickled using a function: def __reduce__(self): return (find_interface, (modulename, globalname)) where find_interface, if ZODB.broken.find_global can be imported, in turn calls: ZODB.broken.find_global(modulename, globalname, Broken=IBroken, type=InterfaceClass) since find_global already has nicely abstracted graceful missing global handling. If this were added to zope.interface, and changed ZODB objects with marker interfaces or persistent registries where all the code for the interfaces is still available will then be updated with pickles that will gracefully handle missing interfaces in the future. Thus you could use zodbupdate to make sure that the interfaces in your ZODB will fail gracefully in the future. Do you agree/disagree that this belongs in zope.interface? What this will not address are existing interfaces-as-globals pickles where the original interface is now missing. That's where the other patches in experimental.broken come in, they intercept the two contexts where we can infer that a missing global should be an interface: instance provides declarations and persistent component registries. By hooking into the unpickling of those objects, we can replace broken classes with broken interfaces as appropriate for those structures. With these patches installed it should be possible to use applications with missing interfaces and to use zodbupdate to make sure that even *already missing* interfaces will fail gracefully both now and in the future. I think these patches don't belong in zope.interface/component and if they work I would likely move them to five.localsitemanager along with a ZCML file that is not loaded by default. Does that sound right? Then one thing I haven't been able to get working is making it possible to commit a changed persistent registry when it includes a component registration for a non-persistent component whose class/type is missing. This works just fine for a *persistent* component whose class/type is missing but fails for a non-persistent component. The error is: AttributeError: 'Bar' object has no attribute '__Broken_newargs__' More specifically, '__Broken_newargs__' is set by the Broken.__new__ method and I've confirmed that this isn't being called by instrumenting __new__, __init__, and __setstate__. Only __setstate__ is called when unpickling the non-persistent broken component not __new__ as should be. Below is the full traceback. I've also left the package repo in the broken state if you want to examine it, the egg checkout is also a buildout: https://github.com/rpatterson/experimental.broken/commit/a4b648dc78e53c7303… Any help with this last issue would be appreciated. Ross Ross Patterson <me(a)rpatterson.net> writes: > Please take a look at experimental.broken: > > https://github.com/rpatterson/experimental.broken > http://pypi.python.org/pypi/experimental.broken > > The handling of broken objects by the ZODB can make an application with > add-ons that use zope.interface far too fragile. If marker interfaces > from an add-on are used on objects in the ZODB, removing that add-on can > make any zope.interface operation on that object fail. Even worse, if > an add-on registers any components in a registry in the ZODB, that > entire registry will become unusable for any ZCA operations which pretty > much breaks everything, including admin interfaces. > > Since the interfaces and the ZCA are often core parts of an application > using the ZODB, it may be appropriate to add special handling for broken > objects to those services. The experimental.broken patches are my > attempt to prototype such special handling. > > For objects in the ZODB which directly provide a marker interface, > these patches allow that object to behave as without the application > of the marker interface if the interface is no longer available. If > the interface is made available again, the full behavior of that > interface is restored. Similarly, if a component whose class, > provided interface, or required interfaces are missing, these patches > allow the registry to perform lookups it would have been able to do > without the broken component registration. If the component > class, provided interface, and required interfaces are restored, > then the component registration is fully restored. > > If an object or registry in the ZODB is committed to the ZODB with > broken interfaces or components, the commit will succeed and it is still > possible to fully restore previous behavior if the missing classes and > interfaces are restored. Unfortunately, because interfaces are pickled > as globals, there's no good way to have the same pickle written on > commit for the interface as was in the original pickle, but it should > behave exactly the same. > > The intention of this package is to see if the implementation of broken > object handling is correct and robust enough to merge into > zope.interface and zope.component themselves. Is this the right > approach? If not why and what would be better? How might this approach > be improved? > > Ross > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > RSA(R) Conference 2012 > Save $700 by Nov 18 > Register now > http://p.sf.net/sfu/rsa-sfdev2dev1

7 10

Re: [Zope-dev] [Plone-developers] experimental.broken - Graceful handling of broken interfaces and components in the ZODB
by Malthe Borch 08 Apr '12

08 Apr '12

On 7 November 2011 09:17, Ross Patterson <me(a)rpatterson.net> wrote: > The intention of this package is to see if the implementation of broken > object handling is correct and robust enough to merge into > zope.interface and zope.component themselves. Is this the right > approach? If not why and what would be better? How might this approach > be improved? (removed plone-dev from cc). Isn't it symptom treatment though? If you've got an add-on which adds marker interfaces to "general objects", shouldn't that add-on remove – or no longer provide – those same interfaces when it's uninstalled? At least in Plone, you can easily query content objects providing a particular set of interfaces. I think it's a non-goal to be able to run a system without all the required software – which is how I understand it when you just do a "hard remove" of an add-on without a prior "soft remove". \malthe

3 2

Content Type Meta tag stripping in zope.pagetemplate
by Miano Njoka 27 Mar '12

27 Mar '12

On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Fred Drake <fred(a)fdrake.net> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Miano Njoka <mianonjoka(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> Yes, this is true, but why strip out the meta tag from the resulting HTML? > > Two reasons: > > 1. It may be incorrect. > > 2. If multiple templates are used to construct a response, different > values may be included from each template, which may be inconsistent. > The code as it is now does not take this into account. It parses the meta content type tag from all the templates passed to it and the content type header sent in the response will be that of the last template processed. > Since the meta element is unnecessary, it seemed better to leave it out > of the result, While it is not essential, it is necessary in some cases where the finished document will be read from disk or is used by other applications eg. Deliverance[http://packages.python.org/Deliverance/]. In fact w3c's HTML validator throws a warning that one should declare the character encoding in the document itself if it is missing. > and rely on other components to render the correct values > without requiring them to insert correct values into the rendered template. Rather than removing the meta tag, I think its less complicated to leave it in the finished HTML and let the developer fix any inconsistencies that may arise.

4 9

ZODB Mountpoint broken?
by Suresh V. 01 Mar '12

01 Mar '12

ZODB Mountpoint distributed with Plone 4.1.2 always seems to create OFS.Folder even if the container-class is specified. Also getting a "KeyError: item already present wih same id" due to _setObject and _setOb both being called. Am trying to mount a plone.app.folder.folder.ATFolder from a separate Data.fs using instructions in: http://plone.org/documentation/kb/mount-zeo-into-plonesite

2 3

zope-tests - OK: 34
by Zope tests summarizer 29 Feb '12

29 Feb '12

This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2012-02-27 00:00:00 UTC and 2012-02-28 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received ---------------- ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-64bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-64bit-linux Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 Non-OK results --------------

1 0

zope-tests - OK: 39
by Zope tests summarizer 28 Feb '12

28 Feb '12

This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2012-02-26 00:00:00 UTC and 2012-02-27 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received ---------------- ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-64bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-64bit-linux Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 Non-OK results --------------

1 0

zope-tests - FAILED: 5, OK: 39
by Zope tests summarizer 27 Feb '12

27 Feb '12

This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2012-02-25 00:00:00 UTC and 2012-02-26 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received ---------------- [1] Repository policy check found errors in 305 projects [2] Total languishing bugs for zope2: 8 [3] Total languishing bugs for zope: 68 [4] Total languishing bugs for zopeapp: 1 [5] Total languishing bugs for zopetoolkit: 210 ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-64bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-64bit-linux Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 Non-OK results -------------- [1] FAILED Repository policy check found errors in 305 projects https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-February/058617.html [2] FAILED Total languishing bugs for zope2: 8 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-February/058615.html [3] FAILED Total languishing bugs for zope: 68 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-February/058614.html [4] FAILED Total languishing bugs for zopeapp: 1 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-February/058609.html [5] FAILED Total languishing bugs for zopetoolkit: 210 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2012-February/058613.html

1 0

zope-tests - OK: 39
by Zope tests summarizer 26 Feb '12

26 Feb '12

This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2012-02-24 00:00:00 UTC and 2012-02-25 00:00:00 UTC: See the footnotes for test reports of unsuccessful builds. An up-to date view of the builders is also available in our buildbot documentation: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html#the-nightly-builds Reports received ---------------- ZTK 1.0 / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.4.6 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.0dev / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.5.5 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.6.7 Linux 64bit ZTK 1.1 / Python2.7.2 Linux 64bit Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.4.6 64bit linux Zope 3.4 KGS / Python2.5.5 64bit linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.4-64bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-32bit-linux Zope 3.4 Known Good Set / py2.5-64bit-linux Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13 Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-2.13-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk Python-2.6.6 : Linux Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.6 : Linux winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_10 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_10 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_254_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_11 py_270_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ztk_dev py_270_win64 Non-OK results --------------

1 0