- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

broken zope.publisher because of new content types in zope.contenttype
by Roger 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Hi all Since aaron added new mimetypes e.g. application/javascript, the _implicitResult method in zope.publisher.http.py (line 794) is broken because the method checks for text/* content types if unicode is given: def _implicitResult(self, body): encoding = getCharsetUsingRequest(self._request) or 'utf-8' content_type = self.getHeader('content-type') if isinstance(body, unicode): try: if not content_type.startswith('text/'): raise ValueError( 'Unicode results must have a text content type.') except AttributeError: raise ValueError( 'Unicode results must have a text content type.') Sould we remove this basic content type check above? Or enhance the check with the new added unicode valid content types like application/javascript. btw, the RFC is just Informational which defines this changes. See: http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc4329.txt Regards Roger Ineichen _____________________________ END OF MESSAGE

3 3

Re: [Zope-dev] upload zope.app.exception to pypi
by Jan-Wijbrand Kolman 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Jan-Wijbrand Kolman <janwijbrand(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Baiju M <mbaiju(a)zeomega.com> wrote: >> $ ./bin/test >> /opt/baiju/wa/z3hello/eggs/zope.testing-3.8.6-py2.6.egg/zope/testing/ > testrunner/debug.py:23: >> DeprecationWarning: zope.testing.doctest is deprecated in favour of >> the Python standard library doctest module >> from zope.testing import doctest >> Test-module import failures: >> >> Module: zope.app.exception.browser.tests.test_unauthorized >> >> Traceback (most recent call last): >> File "/tmp/zope.app.exception/src/zope/app/exception/browser/tests/ > test_unauthorized.py", >> line 20, in <module> >> import zope.app.pagetemplate.namedtemplate >> File "/opt/baiju/wa/z3hello/eggs/zope.app.pagetemplate-3.10.0-py2.6.egg/ > zope/app/pagetemplate/namedtemplate.py", >> line 20, in <module> >> from zope.browerpage.namedtemplate import implementation >> ImportError: No module named browerpage.namedtemplate > > As it turns out, since the "release" of zope.app.exception 3.6.0 namedtemplate > has again been moved. It is now in zope.browserpage. However, zope.browserpage > is not required yet by zope.app.exception. This has been fixed now, but now I'm stumped at this error: 16:17 jw:~/project/grokdev/z.a.exception $ ./bin/test /home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.testing-3.8.6-py2.5.egg/zope/ testing/testrunner/debug.py:23: DeprecationWarning: zope.testing.doctest is deprecated in favour of the Python standard library doctest module from zope.testing import doctest Running zope.app.exception.testing.AppExceptionLayer tests: Set up zope.app.exception.testing.AppExceptionLayer Traceback (most recent call last): File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.testing-3.8.6- py2.5.egg/zope/testing/testrunner/runner.py", line 367, in run_layer setup_layer(options, layer, setup_layers) File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.testing-3.8.6- py2.5.egg/zope/testing/testrunner/runner.py", line 632, in setup_layer layer.setUp() File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.app.testing-3.7.3- py2.5.egg/zope/app/testing/functional.py", line 337, in setUp self.config_file, product_config=self.product_config) File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.app.testing-3.7.3- py2.5.egg/zope/app/testing/functional.py", line 226, in __init__ setup.setUpManager() File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/ zope.app.securitypolicy-3.5.1-py2.5.egg/zope/app/securitypolicy/browser/tests/ functional.py", line 26, in setUpManager functional.HTTPCaller()(grant_request, handle_errors=False) File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.app.testing-3.7.3- py2.5.egg/zope/app/testing/functional.py", line 743, in __call__ request = publish(request, handle_errors=handle_errors) File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.publisher-3.12.0- py2.5.egg/zope/publisher/publish.py", line 131, in publish obj = request.traverse(obj) File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.publisher-3.12.0- py2.5.egg/zope/publisher/browser.py", line 556, in traverse ob, add_steps = publication.getDefaultTraversal(self, ob) File "/home/jw/project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.app.publication-3.10.0- py2.5.egg/zope/app/publication/browser.py", line 36, in getDefaultTraversal return ob.browserDefault(request) Unauthorized: (<zope.browserpage.simpleviewclass.SimpleViewClass from /home/jw/ project/grokdev/z.a.exception/eggs/zope.app.securitypolicy-3.5.1-py2.5.egg/zope/ app/securitypolicy/browser/granting.pt object at 0xa6e6f8c>, 'browserDefault', 'zope.Security') I'm trying to figure out what has changed that could be related to this, but if anyone has a hint for me... regards, jw

2 4

how to help Martijn (how can we have better discussions?)
by Martijn Faassen 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Hi there, A meta-discussion, how dangerous! Let's see whether it can help us improve the way we work together, though. I'll talk about how I think, from my perspective, we can improve the quality of discourse on this mailing list and be more constructive. What lowered the quality of this discussion? I think it is because various people became quite upset and annoyed. That's because I reverted Hanno's changes to the ZTK trunk. I shouldn't have done that just like that, but I needed the subsequent discussion to come up with a better solution. In the turmoil, my attempts to formulate a solution that would satisfy everybody's concerns fairly well seemed to have been overlooked a little bit. Instead we focused a lot of time on discussing bits we ironically enough actually more or less agreed about, such as the role of the ZTK. Nobody seemed to quite notice that I'm in fact in favor of a smaller ZTK, even though I said so repeatedly. That's because I'm *also* in favor of maintaining the zopeapp bits a while longer and not just throwing those away. I want an exit strategy for those bits. A transition strategy. That is a legitimate topic for this mailing list at the very least. Instead, we had endless debates about whether it was a legitimate concern for the ZTK maintainers. I'm of course still right that it is. I have wonderful and coherent reasons to support my position just like everybody else does who disagrees with me. It's not really very important anyway. We're here together on this list to work together beyond the ZTK itself. So how can we have better discussions? We can have better discussions by helping me. How can you help me? Of course it helps if you agree with me. I realize that's frequently infeasible, but I certainly wouldn't mind. :) If you disagree with me, I'd like you to try to understand my concerns as much as you possibly can. In addition, try acknowledge my concerns as much as you possibly can without feeling you're lying. This works beter than just rejecting them. How else can you help me? You can propose realistic solutions for how we as a community can take care of these concerns that I have. And still fulfill your concerns at the same time. Such solutions were entirely possible in this discussion. Constructive debating is an art I'm still learning, but I had the feeling people enjoyed the rest of the debate too much to be very constructive this time... Of course the way you'd help me is the way anybody would be helped in a discussion, as the discussion becomes more constructive. Again, I know as much to blame as anyone else. I helped spark it due to my revert and my continued insistence that I am right. The revert shouldn't have happened. But I didn't know that at the time as I hadn't had time to think yet either. So how else can you help me? Give me some space to think. I believe my concerns could have been easily taken care of if we'd stopped and talked for a little bit *before* drastic changes were checked in. So, you can help me by discussing things that you know are drastic changes before you do them. I know we have had a lot of problems reaching conclusions in such discussions in the past, but we can't learn how to do better at that if we don't. And we are going to do better if I can help it. Regards, Martijn

2 3

[Announce] BlueBream: Script to setup a Zope project directory
by Baiju M 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Hi All, I started a project named "BlueBream" to create a script to setup a Zope project directory. BlueBream use ZTK with some additional packages. BlueBream is based on PasteScript's template plugin. The package is available from PyPI: http://pypi.python.org/pypi/bluebream Source code is available from my Sandbox: svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/Sandbox/baijum/bluebream/trunk Looking for your feedback. Regards, Baiju M

4 8

release and upload zope.app.pagetemplate to pypi
by Jan-Wijbrand Kolman 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

hello, Would any of the owners of zope.app.pagetemplate be so kind to upload (or let me upload) a new version of zope.app.pagetemplate? This will allow me to fix and release zope.app.exception. regards, jw

3 3

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sun Jan 3 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Mon Jan 4 12:00:00 2010 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jan 3 20:37:53 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013317.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jan 3 20:39:53 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013318.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jan 3 20:41:53 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013319.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jan 3 20:43:53 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013320.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jan 3 20:45:53 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013321.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sun Jan 3 20:47:53 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013322.html

1 0

shrinking the ZTK: what happened (my perspective)
by Martijn Faassen 04 Jan '10

04 Jan '10

Hi there, This is a summary of the previous discussions for those who weren't paying attention last week and don't want to read a huge thread coming back from vacations. I'm talking about you in particular, other steering group members. I'll spread it out over multiple short mails. So what happened? Hanno reduced the ZTK to a set of just zope.* packages. He removed the zope.app packages from the ZTK. I was happy with losing zope.app, but not the way the zope.app packages were just unceremoniously removed from the ZTK without discussion. I didn't like the way that was done, so I reverted Hanno's change and added the packages back to the ZTK trunk. I objected because of backwards compatibility concerns. Version information was being lost that was being maintained before. This information would be useful in both upgrading Zope 3 and Grok applications to the ZTK. (and I thought Zope 2 too at the time, but it is less of an issue there) People responded in various ways: * the ZTK isn't released yet and a discontinuity so there are no backwards compatibility concerns we need to care about. * people maintaining Zope 3 or Grok applications, or the developers of these frameworks, should figure this out for themselves. I responded that if the ZTK wants users it should help people cross the gap to it. That the ZTK has some responsibility to the transition from the past. Nobody seemed to feel that these arguments weighed very heavily. Since I'm writing this summary, I'm of course still right. :) Let me put that in other words: I believe have a legitimate concern that we could have solved pretty easily if we all weren't too busy trying to make points and being disgruntled. Next, a point about what went wrong in the discussion. That's a meta-discussion, which are dangerous, but I think also valuable to a community like ours in transition. Regards, Martijn

2 1

zope.testing 3.8.6 emits deprecation warnings from itself?
by Chris Withers 03 Jan '10

03 Jan '10

Hi, I hate DeprecationWarnings at the best of times, since no one actually does anything about them until whatever they're bleating about is actually gone anyway, but zope.testing has outdone itself. Whoever introduced that warning, if you're going to do so, please solve any problems with code in the actual package itself before releasing. zope.testing.testrunner.debug imports doctest from zope.testing and so bleats whenever tests are run with zope.testing 3.8.6. Why was 3.8.6 released when it still emits these warnings itself? Chris -- Simplistix - Content Management, Batch Processing & Python Consulting - http://www.simplistix.co.uk

5 15

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 03 Jan '10

03 Jan '10

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Jan 2 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Sun Jan 3 12:00:00 2010 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jan 2 20:38:00 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013311.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jan 2 20:40:00 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013312.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jan 2 20:42:00 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013313.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jan 2 20:44:00 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013314.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jan 2 20:46:00 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013315.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Sat Jan 2 20:48:00 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013316.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 02 Jan '10

02 Jan '10

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Jan 1 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Sat Jan 2 12:00:00 2010 UTC. There were 6 messages: 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jan 1 20:37:05 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013305.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jan 1 20:39:05 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013306.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jan 1 20:41:06 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013307.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jan 1 20:43:06 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013308.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jan 1 20:45:06 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013309.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Jan 1 20:47:06 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-January/013310.html

1 0