[Zope-dev] Mountpoints

[Chris McDonough]

I lied.  Due to completely preventable circumstances, this merge won't
be done tonight; instead, it will be done tomorrow evening.

- C


On Mon, 2005-10-24 at 16:41 -0400, Tim Peters wrote:
> [Chris McDonough]
> > Thanks for this!
> 
> Not required, so long as I get to thank you for finishing it ;-)
> 
> > Looks like that test failure is incidental and not symptomatic of
> > changes made to ZODB.  I think Tres may have said that it can be
> > fixed by merging in a fix from the Five HEAD, but I don't know this
> > for fact first-hand.
> 
> I'm sure that failure will go away by itself when you're working on
> the trunk instead of the branch.  What I'd do now:
> 
> - Check out Zope trunk.
> 
> - Merge the branch into your trunk sandbox, and forget the branch.
> 
> - Fix merge conflicts.  I got one, in datatypes.py, and I didn't know
>   immediately what to do about it so stopped there.  You'll have
>   better luck ;-).  Note that, under SVN, after you fix a conflict, you
>   have to do "svn resolved path/to/conflicted/file"; that's a gimmick
>   to make sure you don't forget about conflicts.
> 
> - "svn up" to make sure you've got all the externals the merged
>   files point at.
> 
> - "svn up" from time to time thereafter, to suck in other trunk changes
>   as they get made.
> 
> - Check it in when it's stable.
> 
> - If it takes longer than expected, make a _new_ branch _from_
>   your merged-into-trunk local trunk sandbox.  (That's easy:  make a
>   branch directory, "svn switch" to it from your local merged trunk
>   sandbox, and "svn commit" -- all done).
> 
> > It's encouraging that most of the tests pass but there are a paucity
> > of tests that specifically test Zope 2 multidatabase-based mount
> > points.  There are a few convincing-looking decoys in
> > Products.ZODBMountPoint.tests but I think I'll need to create a few
> > more to get the warm and fuzzies before doing the merge.
> 
> As above, you can do a _local_ merge right away.  This would save you
> from other decoys (like the DeprecationWarnings that would no longer
> exist if you were using the trunk instead of the brach, and the
> failing-on-branch-but-not-trunk Five test).
> 
> I recall that, historically, the Zope tests never failed when Zope
> mounting was in fact broken, so a fat +1 to beefing test coverage
> there.
> 
> > I have this on my plate for Wednesday evening.
> 
> Understood; there really isn't any good TV on Wednesdays anymore ;-)
>