zope-tests - FAILED: 4, OK: 12
This is the summary for test reports received on the zope-tests list between 2013-04-23 00:00:00 UTC and 2013-04-24 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] Still Failing - zopetoolkit_trunk - Build # 243 [2] Still Failing - zopetoolkit_trunk - Build # 247 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_265_win64 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win32 winbot / ZODB_dev py_270_win64 [3] winbot / z3c.contents_py_265_32 [4] winbot / z3c.form_py_265_32 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 Non-OK results -------------- [1] FAILED Still Failing - zopetoolkit_trunk - Build # 243 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2013-April/074092.html [2] FAILED Still Failing - zopetoolkit_trunk - Build # 247 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2013-April/074094.html [3] FAILED winbot / z3c.contents_py_265_32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2013-April/074093.html [4] FAILED winbot / z3c.form_py_265_32 https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2013-April/074091.html
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:00:01AM +0000, Zope tests summarizer wrote:
[1] Still Failing - zopetoolkit_trunk - Build # 243 [2] Still Failing - zopetoolkit_trunk - Build # 247
Same old
[3] winbot / z3c.contents_py_265_32
Same old -- and I just managed to reproduce it at last.
[4] winbot / z3c.form_py_265_32
Last build successful. Marius Gedminas -- http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3/BlueBream consulting and development
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:21:37AM +0300, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:00:01AM +0000, Zope tests summarizer wrote:
[3] winbot / z3c.contents_py_265_32
Same old -- and I just managed to reproduce it at last.
ZODB.utils.newTid(None) returns "'\\x03\\x9e8\\x9a:>\\x12\\x88'", i.e. the repr of an 8-byte string instead of the 8-byte string itself. AFAICT it's because repr(persistent.timestamp.TimeStamp(2013, 04, 25, 11, 30, 0)) changed in persistent 4.0.5: https://github.com/zopefoundation/persistent/commit/e692af8281466fa309aae927... This was fixed in ZODB 4.0.4a4: https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/8dfbff499d109b1cf86d1b4b2b98a6... https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/994af0c5f9df63d403a0e21d80eec5... https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/19e851c2230a20cfcebc68fca37ce2... https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/2ce7b945003ca8494f970a6946e414... So latest stable ZODB3 (3.10.5) is incompatible with the two latest stable persistent releases (4.0.5 and 4.0.6). What should we do? Release ZODB3 3.10.6 with a backport of these patches? Marius Gedminas -- http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3/BlueBream consulting and development
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/25/2013 04:36 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:21:37AM +0300, Marius Gedminas wrote:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 01:00:01AM +0000, Zope tests summarizer wrote:
[3] winbot / z3c.contents_py_265_32
Same old -- and I just managed to reproduce it at last.
ZODB.utils.newTid(None) returns "'\\x03\\x9e8\\x9a:>\\x12\\x88'", i.e. the repr of an 8-byte string instead of the 8-byte string itself.
AFAICT it's because repr(persistent.timestamp.TimeStamp(2013, 04, 25, 11, 30, 0)) changed in persistent 4.0.5:
https://github.com/zopefoundation/persistent/commit/e692af8281466fa309aae927...
This was fixed in ZODB 4.0.4a4:
https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/8dfbff499d109b1cf86d1b4b2b98a6...
https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/994af0c5f9df63d403a0e21d80eec5...
https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/19e851c2230a20cfcebc68fca37ce2...
https://github.com/zopefoundation/ZODB/commit/2ce7b945003ca8494f970a6946e414...
So latest stable ZODB3 (3.10.5) is incompatible with the two latest stable persistent releases (4.0.5 and 4.0.6).
What should we do? Release ZODB3 3.10.6 with a backport of these patches?
ZODB 3.10 bundles its own version of persistent: the standalone one shouldn't be used at all if ZODB 3.10 is in play. Tres. - -- =================================================================== Tres Seaver +1 540-429-0999 tseaver@palladion.com Palladion Software "Excellence by Design" http://palladion.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlF5NGgACgkQ+gerLs4ltQ5EmgCbBmbeaDMs/6pyN0SQc3jcIlzj AakAoLwmtyjODMmz3JXHxGXy8rUMElAl =5GSE -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:49:28AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
On 04/25/2013 04:36 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
So latest stable ZODB3 (3.10.5) is incompatible with the two latest stable persistent releases (4.0.5 and 4.0.6).
What should we do? Release ZODB3 3.10.6 with a backport of these patches?
ZODB 3.10 bundles its own version of persistent: the standalone one shouldn't be used at all if ZODB 3.10 is in play.
Yet somehow we're getting both in a z3c.contents buildout. Note that z3c.contents doesn't directly require either one. It looks like we're getting persistent via BTrees 4.0.5, and we're getting BTrees via zope.annotation 4.2.0, and we're getting zope.annotation via zope.copypastemove 3.8.0, which is a direct requirement of z3c.contents. Are BTrees bundled with ZODB3 as well? (Yes.) Can setuptools dependencies express complicated Debian-package-like concepts like "ZODB3 provides BTrees, persistent" and "ZODB3 conflicts with BTrees, persistent"? Are there other ways of avoiding a flag day? I don't think we can reasonably require that no final-version PyPI package may depend on BTrees or persistent until ZODB 4.0.0 final is finally out. Marius Gedminas -- http://pov.lt/ -- Zope 3/BlueBream consulting and development
2013/4/25 Marius Gedminas <marius@gedmin.as>:
On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 09:49:28AM -0400, Tres Seaver wrote:
On 04/25/2013 04:36 AM, Marius Gedminas wrote:
So latest stable ZODB3 (3.10.5) is incompatible with the two latest stable persistent releases (4.0.5 and 4.0.6).
What should we do? Release ZODB3 3.10.6 with a backport of these patches?
ZODB 3.10 bundles its own version of persistent: the standalone one shouldn't be used at all if ZODB 3.10 is in play.
Yet somehow we're getting both in a z3c.contents buildout. Note that z3c.contents doesn't directly require either one.
It looks like we're getting persistent via BTrees 4.0.5, and we're getting BTrees via zope.annotation 4.2.0, and we're getting zope.annotation via zope.copypastemove 3.8.0, which is a direct requirement of z3c.contents.
Are BTrees bundled with ZODB3 as well? (Yes.)
Can setuptools dependencies express complicated Debian-package-like concepts like "ZODB3 provides BTrees, persistent" and "ZODB3 conflicts with BTrees, persistent"?
Are there other ways of avoiding a flag day? I don't think we can reasonably require that no final-version PyPI package may depend on BTrees or persistent until ZODB 4.0.0 final is finally out.
I have removed some deprecated ftest dependencies like zope.app.securitypolicy that pulls in the whole Zope 3. Tests passed. Then I pinned some versions until nothing required ZODB3 any more. Let's see how winbot likes it. -- Gediminas
participants (4)
-
Gediminas Paulauskas -
Marius Gedminas -
Tres Seaver -
Zope tests summarizer