- Zope-Dev - Zope lists

Re: [Zope-dev] KeyError: 'URL' in HTTPRequest using zope2.7-py2.3.3
by Brian Watson 04 Dec '05

04 Dec '05

>Brian Watson wrote at 2005-12-1 20:55 -0500: > brian w. > -------------------- > Traceback (most recent call last): > File > "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\zExceptions\ExceptionFormatter.py", > line 157, > in formatLine > result.extend(self.formatSupplement(supp, tb)) > File > "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\zExceptions\ExceptionFormatter.py", > line 105, > in formatSupplement > extra = self.formatExtraInfo(supplement) > File > "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\zExceptions\ExceptionFormatter.py", > line 231, > in formatExtraInfo > extra = getInfo(1) > File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\Products\PageTemplates\TALES.py", > line 277, i > n getInfo > ... > File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\ZPublisher\HTTPRequest.py", line > 1295, in __r > epr__ > return "<%s, URL=%s>" % (self.__class__.__name__, self['URL']) > File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\ZPublisher\HTTPRequest.py", line > 1214, in __g > etitem__ > raise KeyError, key > KeyError: 'URL' >> >>The "request" in your PageTemplate context lacks an "URL". >> >>"URL" is set in the "HTTPRequest"s constructor ("__init__"). >>If an "HTTPRequest" instance lacks "URL" this means either: >> >> * the instance was created in a wrong way (contructor not called) >> >> * "URL" was deleted after construction. >> >>Unfortunately, the details you have provided does not allow >>to say more about this problem. >>-- >>Dieter thanks for your reply. theres really not all that much info to go along with the error; is there anything i could try and include? i followed the error just like you said and see where theyre init'd, but the object just seems to be empty. i can str it and get your normal zope-style table of a request only it lacks the base#/url# attributes. its __dict__ seems normal, but .other and ._urls are both empty. i'm not sure how 'URL' could have been deleted or how the httprequest could have been instantiated wrong. it doesnt happen everytime, but when i open multiple browsers and click-crazy to tax it a bit it will happen in ~1-2mins, almost when it boggs down the server a little. afterward the server runs slower for a while until it seems to catch up. my items in plone are archetype-based and do a little db. it must be something wierd in my svr versions because the exact same thing happened here: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2003-November/020952.html and sort of here where they found the problem: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-February/021793.html but i've scoured my code/site for any similar name issues and cannot find any. i wish the guy who posted the first issue would've at least thrown me a hint, but he got pissed when i emailed him directly to ask. thanks again for your help, and please let me know if there are any other lists i should be in (not sure if this is really zope-dev related), brian w. -- ___________________________________________________ Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/

2 1

RFC: _verifyObjectPaste cleanup
by yuppie 04 Dec '05

04 Dec '05

Hi! Basically I'd like to remove the workaround introduced to fix http://www.zope.org/Collectors/Zope/78 : http://svn.zope.org/Zope/trunk/lib/python/OFS/CopySupport.py?view=diff&r1=2… checkPermission now respects proxy roles, so this workaround is no longer needed. Replacing the workaround by a checkPermission call will make the 'permission' key in all_meta_types required, the 'action' key becomes optional. The old code did have a fallback for meta_types without 'permission' key. This is the comment for the fallback: # XXX: Ancient cruft, left here in true co-dependent fashion # to keep from breaking old products which don't put # permissions on their metadata registry entries. Is it save to make the 'permission' key required? Or do we need the fallback for 'ancient cruft'? There might be new products that don't set the 'permission' key because it wasn't enforced until now. I propose to - leave Zope 2.7 untouched - use checkPermission in Zope 2.8 and add the fallback with deprecation warning - make the 'permission' key required in Zope 2.9 and later Any comments? Cheers, Yuppie

2 2

Zope tests: 8 OK
by Zope tests summarizer 04 Dec '05

04 Dec '05

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Sat Dec 3 12:01:02 2005 UTC to Sun Dec 4 12:01:02 2005 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2_6-branch Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:20:55 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003706.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_6-branch Python-2.3.5 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:22:25 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003707.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_7-branch Python-2.3.5 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:23:56 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003708.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_7-branch Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:25:26 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003709.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_8-branch Python-2.3.5 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:26:56 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003710.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_8-branch Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:28:26 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003711.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_9-branch Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:29:56 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003712.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Sat Dec 3 22:31:26 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003713.html

1 0

Re: SVN: Zope/branches/Zope-2_8-branch/test.py Implemented a --nowarnings flag for test.py.
by Tres Seaver 03 Dec '05

03 Dec '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Stefan H. Holek wrote: > Log message for revision 40519: > Implemented a --nowarnings flag for test.py. > Makes running CMF and Plone tests a lot less annoying. Note that the CMF tests run clean at this point. Suppressing the warning output is not likely to improve the quality of a codebase. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 202-558-7113 tseaver(a)palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDkche+gerLs4ltQ4RAuj/AKDCRrBAqlMHdv8hBYeccKXPwREvngCgzsxi d543wvSFQvp63eVcmIeETWU= =yWgx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Zope tests: 8 OK
by Zope tests summarizer 03 Dec '05

03 Dec '05

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Dec 2 12:01:01 2005 UTC to Sat Dec 3 12:01:01 2005 UTC. There were 8 messages: 8 from Zope Unit Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK : Zope-2_6-branch Python-2.1.3 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:16:08 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003698.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_6-branch Python-2.3.5 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:17:38 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003699.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_7-branch Python-2.3.5 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:19:08 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003700.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_7-branch Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:20:38 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003701.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_8-branch Python-2.3.5 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:22:08 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003702.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_8-branch Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:23:38 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003703.html Subject: OK : Zope-2_9-branch Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:25:08 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003704.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.4.2 : Linux From: Zope Unit Tests Date: Fri Dec 2 22:26:39 EST 2005 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2005-December/003705.html

1 0

KeyError: 'URL' in HTTPRequest using zope2.7-py2.3.3
by Brian Watson 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

hello all, i'm running into a wierd zope/plone error. it is the same error as the "RESPONSE eaten" post at: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2003-November/020952.html i asked the poster for help since there were no followups, but unfortunately he would not help me and told me he was not my personal helpdesk. these posters had a similar issue/solution: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2004-February/021793.html but i cannot find a similar culprit. any help would be much appreciated. below is my traceback. thanks a million, brian w. -------------------- Traceback (most recent call last): File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\zExceptions\ExceptionFormatter.py", line 157, in formatLine result.extend(self.formatSupplement(supp, tb)) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\zExceptions\ExceptionFormatter.py", line 105, in formatSupplement extra = self.formatExtraInfo(supplement) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\zExceptions\ExceptionFormatter.py", line 231, in formatExtraInfo extra = getInfo(1) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\Products\PageTemplates\TALES.py", line 277, i n getInfo s = pprint.pformat(data) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Python\lib\pprint.py", line 58, in pformat return PrettyPrinter().pformat(object) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Python\lib\pprint.py", line 109, in pformat self._format(object, sio, 0, 0, {}, 0) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Python\lib\pprint.py", line 127, in _format rep = self._repr(object, context, level - 1) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Python\lib\pprint.py", line 191, in _repr self._depth, level) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Python\lib\pprint.py", line 203, in format return _safe_repr(object, context, maxlevels, level) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Python\lib\pprint.py", line 246, in _safe_repr vrepr, vreadable, vrecur = saferepr(v, context, maxlevels, level) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Python\lib\pprint.py", line 286, in _safe_repr rep = `object` File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\ZPublisher\HTTPRequest.py", line 1295, in __r epr__ return "<%s, URL=%s>" % (self.__class__.__name__, self['URL']) File "E:\NBCJEAP\Zope\lib\python\ZPublisher\HTTPRequest.py", line 1214, in __g etitem__ raise KeyError, key KeyError: 'URL' -- ___________________________________________________ Play 100s of games for FREE! http://games.mail.com/

2 1

Folderish or SimpleItem object types for structural content
by Martijn Jacobs 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

Hello guys! I have a simple question about the design of hierarchical zope product structures in Zope 2. For example, you have categories, within categories you have sub-categories, within sub-categories you have sub-sub categories, within that you have content items, within content items you have....etcetera. All those products are different 'types', with different functionality and different 'roles' as what they represent, so I write different products for every type. For every object that can contain subobjects you could derive it from 'Folder' (or Object Manager). But when you derive all these product types from 'Folder' you end up with ALOT of objects in your database. In a lot of real world cases you have categories and items, that makes things easy, but what about the structure explained above? My question for you guys is : When do you decide to make it a Folderish object which contains sub-objects, or to make it a Simple Item object with, for example, some structured XML content, or dictionary / list properties containing the 'sub-structure'? The last option is more work, because you have to write your add/edit/delete/etc code yourself, writing it with Folders makes it more easily, but then you have an explosion of objects in the ZODB. I would like to have some fresh thoughts about this, so maybe you can help. Thank you in advance, kind regards, Martijn. -- Martijn Jacobs Four Digits, internet solutions e-mail: martijn(a)fourdigits.nl | web: http://www.fourdigits.nl tel: +31 (0)26 44 22 700 | fax: +31 (0)84 22 06 117

3 6

buildbot failure in Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
by buildbot＠zope.com 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 1919 Blamelist: chrisw,ctheune BUILD FAILED: failed test sincerely, -The Buildbot

3 3

Python2.4 Security Audit ETA???
by Alan Milligan 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, Aeons ago someone promised that said Zope security audit of Python 2.4 was scheduled for October. I've not yet seen any happy announcements that Zope is now 2.4 compliant, and do want to highlight the importance of achieving this goal. Python2.4 has been out for almost a year now, and it's fairly ubiquitous. There've been many statements made on this list about people quite happily running their Zope's - contrary to white hat advice. With the major distro's, Python is entrenched in their installer and gui processes and *all* packaging is focused around a single python (2.4 for everyone excepting our BastionLinux). In reality it is infeasible to support a second version of Python for Z2. Many modules have SWIG bindings (while core Z2 doesn't require much of this, a number of products do), requiring multiple package versions - build systems cannot cope with this scenario without massive spec customisations (which is all pointless given the window of this requirement - and of course that we've all actually learnt something for python2.5, python2.6 ....) We are getting an increasing number of people attempting to load incompatible packages. It is not possible to downgrade python. Most of userland is not competent to get a secondary python2.3 installation running - especially when packages such as python-ldap are simply not available for their old python and new ldap etc etc which all requires custom package builds. We are also stuck in a time-warp actually having to back-port a large proportion of recent linux packages because we'd like to make new features available, increasing costs and testing requirements. It is also no longer possible for customers to subscribe to just a single channel because our core is substantially different to their chosen vendor's installation, and packages will be installed into meaningless python paths etc. Can someone please give me an ETA on this, so I can decide if and how to support zope in light of other pressing linux requirements for our distro. Alan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDi/JXCfroLk4EZpkRAlGgAKC1ZjYut1GG55TlxUyVxtD1y+YLKgCg1IV6 vsT9SOOBMUxBP4i1qo7+7q0= =MuMS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

7 9

buildbot failure in Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot
by buildbot＠zope.com 02 Dec '05

02 Dec '05

The Buildbot has detected a failed build of Zope trunk 2.4 Linux zc-buildbot. Buildbot URL: http://buildbot.zope.org/ Build Reason: changes Build Source Stamp: 1921 Blamelist: chrisw BUILD FAILED: failed test sincerely, -The Buildbot

2 1