- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

Zope Tests: 6 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 14 Jan '07

14 Jan '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Jan 13 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Sun Jan 14 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Unit Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1, errors=2) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Jan 13 21:19:29 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007040.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Jan 13 21:10:28 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007034.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Jan 13 21:11:59 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007035.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Jan 13 21:13:29 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007036.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Jan 13 21:14:59 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007037.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Jan 13 21:16:29 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007038.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Jan 13 21:17:59 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007039.html

1 0

Problems checking out zope.interface
by Grig Gheorghiu 14 Jan '07

14 Jan '07

I'm trying to check out zope.interface for one of the tests I'm running for Twisted in the Pybots project. I've been getting an error lately: [twistbot@concord tmp]$ svn co svn://svn.zope.org/repos/main/zope.interface/trunk zope.interface A zope.interface/buildout.cfg A zope.interface/CHANGES.txt A zope.interface/setup.py A zope.interface/src A zope.interface/src/zope A zope.interface/src/zope/__init__.py A zope.interface/README.txt U zope.interface Fetching external item into 'zope.interface/src/zope/interface' Permission denied (publickey,keyboard-interactive). svn: Connection closed unexpectedly Any ideas why this is happening? Grig

2 1

Error running ZPublisher tests
by Andreas Jung 14 Jan '07

14 Jan '07

Running the ZPublisher tests (on the trunk) alone results in the following error. However the tests works when running all unittests. Bug or feature? Andreas ------------ ajung@galactica:~/sandboxes/Zope/Zope> bin/zopectl test -s ZPublisher Running tests via: /opt/python-2.4.3/bin/python /develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/bin/test.py -v --config-file /develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/etc/zope.conf -s ZPublisher Parsing /develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/etc/zope.conf Running tests at level 1 Running unit tests: Running: .....................................2007-01-14 11:26:30 ERROR ZPublisher '__before_publishing_traverse__' call <ZPublisher.tests.testBeforeTraverse.BrokenHook instance at 0x2ae2fa224e18> failed. Traceback (most recent call last): File "/develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/lib/python/ZPublisher/BeforeTraverse.py", line 105, in __call__ cob(container, request) File "/develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testBeforeTraverse.py", line 30, in __call__ raise TypeError, self.__class__.__name__ TypeError: BrokenHook 2007-01-14 11:26:30 ERROR ZPublisher BeforeTraverse: Error while invoking hook: "broken_callable" Traceback (most recent call last): File "/develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/lib/python/ZPublisher/BeforeTraverse.py", line 145, in __call__ meth(*(container, request, None)[:args]) File "/develop/sandboxes/Zope/Zope/lib/python/ZPublisher/tests/testBeforeTraverse.py", line 30, in __call__ raise TypeError, self.__class__.__name__ TypeError: BrokenHook

2 1

Zope Tests: 6 OK, 1 Failed
by Zope Tests Summarizer 13 Jan '07

13 Jan '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Jan 12 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Sat Jan 13 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Unit Tests. Test failures ------------- Subject: FAILED (failures=1) : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Jan 12 21:17:25 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007033.html Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Jan 12 21:08:25 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007027.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Jan 12 21:09:55 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007028.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Jan 12 21:11:25 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007029.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Jan 12 21:12:55 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007030.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Jan 12 21:14:25 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007031.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Jan 12 21:15:55 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007032.html

1 0

Re: [Z3d] 747/ 2 Comment "zope.app.interface PersistentInterfaceClass dependents broken"
by Ross Patterson 12 Jan '07

12 Jan '07

I've submitted a patch for zope.app.interface.PersistentInterfaceClass and it looks like I could use the approach of zodbcode ModuleManagers and zope.app.interface.PersistentInterfaceClass instances for what I need. Over the course of this work, however, I noticed ZODB.persistentclass.PersistentMetaClass. Does anyone have any sense of how one might decide to use persistent modules versus PersistentMetaClass? Which cases are appropriate for which approach? Is either body of code more of less active/up-to-date/well-maintained than the other? My specific case is that I want to allow site administrators to create new marker interfaces to be used to mark content and to register adapters for.' Ross "Collector: Zope 3 ..." <jim(a)zope.com> writes: > Issue #747 Update (Comment) "zope.app.interface PersistentInterfaceClass dependents broken" > Status Pending, core/bug+solution medium > To followup, visit: > http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/747 > > ============================================================== > = Comment - Entry #2 by rossp on Jan 12, 2007 4:46 pm > > > Uploaded: "persistent-interfaces-fix.diff" > - http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/747/persistent-interfaces-fix.diff… > a fix for all but the zope.interface.interface.InterfaceClass provides declaration weak reference bug > ________________________________________ > = Request - Entry #1 by rossp on Jan 12, 2007 4:44 pm > > > Uploaded: "persistent-interfaces-tests.diff" > - http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope3-dev/747/persistent-interfaces-tests.di… > zope.app.interface.PersistentInterfaceClass uses a PersistentDict for > the dependents attribute instead of the WeakKeyDictionary used in > zope.interface.interface.InterfaceClass. There are a number of bugs > associated with this approach not exposed in any tests. Attached is a > diff to the tests of zope.app.interface and zope.app.component to > expose these bugs. > > Firstly, if IFoo is a zope.app.interface.PersistentInterfaceClass > instance and zope.interface.directlyProvides(foo, IFoo), the > declaraion can't be verified from a different ZODB connection with > IFoo.providedBy(foo) due to the following. When the ZODB is trying to > unpickle the dependents attribute of IFoo, it procedes down the > serialization of IFoo to the ProvidesClass instance representing the > declaration. It begins reconstituting the ProvidesClass instance, > which calls IFoo.subscribe(provides) which accesses the dependents > attribute of IFoo. Since the ProvidesClass instance isn't persistent, > it has no oid the ZODB circular reference check doesn't catch this > circle. As a result the fix is to make sure that the declarations > instances in the dependents attribute are themselves persistent. > > Also attached is a diff to zope.app.interface that replaces > PersistentInterfaceClass.dependents with a custom dict that converts > non-persistent declarations being added to the dependents attribute > into persistent versions of the same. > > This fixes the problem but is not optimal because there are then two > instances for the same declaration, one in the ProvidesClass instance > stored in the object's __provides__ attribute and the other in the > dependents attribute of the PersistentInterfaceClass. > > It seems like the more appropriate solution would be to check for > PersistentInterfaceClass instances in > zope.interface.declarations.directlyProvides and use the persistent > declaration classes for those declaraions. Since > PersistentInterfaceClass is in zope.app.interface and zope.interface, > I wasn't sure which was the lesser of the two evils, so I restrained > my changes to zope.app. What might be a better solution? Give me > some feedback and I'll change the implementation. > > There's another problem with the > zope.app.interface.PersistentInterfaceClass.dependents attribute. > zope.interface.InterfaceClass.dependents is a WeakKeyDictionary so > that declarations don't keep objects from being freed if the object is > removed. By using a PersistentDict for dependents, the declarations > can keep an object from being freed from memory and/or the ZODB when > the object is removed. > > My first patch also includes tests for this bug. These tests seem to > have exposed another unrelated bug. An instance of a class that > subclasses persistent.Persistent is declared that it > zope.interface.directlyProvides a zope.interface.InterfaceClass > instance and then the persistent object is added to the ZODB and > committed. Then if the persistent instance is deleted from the ZODB, > the transaction is committed, and the ZODB is packed, and gc.collect > is run, the ProvidesClass instance in the InterfaceClass instance > still remains. It does not, however, remain if the persistent > interface was never added to the ZODB. > > I'm not sure if this represents a potential memory leak or not. What > confuses me is that it all behaves properly unless the persistent > instance is added to the ZODB. I noted the comment about weak > referrences being added to the ZODB optomistically in ZODB.serialize. > Could that be it? Unfortunately, my second patch doesn't include a > fix for this. I'd be happy to investigate this further if given a > little direction. > ==============================================================

1 0

Zope Sprints at PyCon
by Jim Fulton 12 Jan '07

12 Jan '07

There will be a couple of Zope sprints at PyCon this year: http://us.pycon.org/TX2007/Sprints Benji York and I will be there on Monday and Tuesday, February 26 and 27. I'd like to work on Zope3 eggification with a goal of being able to assemble the Zope 3 application included in Zope 3 releases from a collection of eggs. This will be part of the Zope 3.4 sprint, http://us.pycon.org/TX2007/ Zope34Sprint. I hope t see some more folks there. Maybe there should be a Zope 2 sprint. BTW, PyCon Early Bird Registration ends soon! Jim -- Jim Fulton mailto:jim@zope.com Python Powered! CTO (540) 361-1714 http://www.python.org Zope Corporation http://www.zope.com http://www.zope.org

1 0

[Warning] Zope 3 component architecture (CA) not reliably usable for registrations from Python
by Dieter Maurer 12 Jan '07

12 Jan '07

I tried to use Zope3 events to get informed when requests start and end. One of our modules (the interface module to "jpype") requires such a notification for reliable work. Therefore, it tried to register the corresponding subscriptions on import of this module. Unfortunately, this works very unreliably -- for the following reasons: The CA performs by itself only extremely minimal initialization. Especially, it does not register the "Adapters" service, necessary for the registration of event subscriptions. The full CA initialization is only performed quite late, in the call to "Products.Five.initialize". Event notification registration attempts before this time will fail (with a "ComponentLookupError: 'Adapters'"), those performed after this time will succeed. The "Five" initialization is stupid enough that it will fail when the service registration for 'Adapters' has already been performed. At the current state, event notifications can reliably only be defined via ZCML. This is unfortunate for our use case where the registration should be bound to the import of a given module. -- Dieter

6 15

Zope Tests: 7 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 12 Jan '07

12 Jan '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Jan 11 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Fri Jan 12 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Jan 11 21:09:40 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007020.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Jan 11 21:11:11 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007021.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Jan 11 21:12:41 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007022.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Jan 11 21:14:11 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007023.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Jan 11 21:15:46 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007024.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Jan 11 21:17:16 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007025.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Thu Jan 11 21:18:46 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007026.html

1 0

Zope Tests: 7 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 11 Jan '07

11 Jan '07

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Wed Jan 10 12:00:00 2007 UTC to Thu Jan 11 12:00:00 2007 UTC. There were 7 messages: 7 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Jan 10 21:08:34 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007013.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.6 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Jan 10 21:10:04 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007014.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.7 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Jan 10 21:11:35 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007015.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.8 Python-2.3.6 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Jan 10 21:13:07 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007016.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.9 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Jan 10 21:14:37 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007017.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Jan 10 21:16:07 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007018.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.4 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Wed Jan 10 21:17:37 EST 2007 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2007-January/007019.html

1 0

Zope 2.10.2 coming up
by Andreas Jung 10 Jan '07

10 Jan '07

Hi, I plan to release Zope 2.10.2 in a week or so (don't nail me to a particular date). This will be a beta release because it contains several ZPT changes (as discussed earlier on the list) that must/should be tested. In addition I will merge my latest changes (the UnicodeEncodingConflictResolver stuff) in order to make the handling of UnicodeDecodeErrors (possibly introduced by the changes) configurable. I am aware that this is a new feature which is forbidden by design on a release branch however there is a need to deal with such decoding errors in a reasonable and configurable way. However the default behavior won't change. Andreas

3 5