Zope-Dev March 2010

zope-dev@zope.dev

50 participants
83 discussions

Zope Tests: 7 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 06 Mar '10

06 Mar '10

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Fri Mar 5 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Sat Mar 6 12:00:00 2010 UTC. There were 7 messages: 1 from Christian Theune, 6 from Zope Tests. Tests passed OK --------------- Subject: OK: Something that is tested From: Christian Theune Date: Fri Mar 5 07:29:00 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013683.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.10 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 5 20:36:30 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013684.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 5 20:38:30 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013685.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 5 20:40:30 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013686.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 5 20:42:30 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013687.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 5 20:44:30 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013688.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Fri Mar 5 20:46:30 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013689.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] Uses of the ZTK and how it relates to management
by Fabio Tranchitella 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

* 2010-03-03 21:44, Jim Fulton wrote: > The ZTK was created in part to deal with instability issues arising from > people working on parts without testing the whole. I suppose everybody here agrees that any change to a package which is part of the ZTK *must* be tested against the whole ZTK. It would be easier to nd leading developers for subgroups of packages (eg. bicycle repair kit, rm generation, ...) willing to raise the quality of a specific subset of packages instead of finding a release manager willing to oversee > 60 packages, which he does not really use (because I don't think we have a single developer using *all* of the packages in the ZTK). These specific leading developers could report and synchronize with a ZTK release manager, though. My two euro cents. Fabio

6 9

Possible DateTime timezone-related regression in Zope 2.12
by Martin Aspeli 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

Hi, We have a failing test in plone.app.dexterity 1.0a7. This is simply trying to compare two dates: >>> from DateTime import DateTime >>> DateTime() > DateTime(md.CreationDate()) True At least here in Australia, the second test fails. Right now, the following expressions are: DateTime(): DateTime('2010/01/10 11:20:24.718203 GMT+8') md.CreationDate(): '2010-01-10 11:19:57' DateTime(md.CreationDate()): DateTime('2010/01/10 11:19:57 GMT+0') On Zope 2.10, it's a different story: DateTime(): DateTime('2010/01/10 11:34:01.508 GMT+8') md.CreationDate(): '2010-01-10 11:24:42' DateTime(md.CreationDate()): DateTime('2010/01/10 11:24:42 GMT+8') Andi Zeidler looked into it briefly, and said the following: imho, this is due a bug in `DateTime` 2.12.0. the newer version behaves differently when it's initialized via a string representation of a date — it interprets the given date to be GMT while before it was taken to be from your local time zone: $ cd ~/plone/coredev/branches $ cat foo.py from DateTime import DateTime print DateTime('2010-01-09 00:34:37') $ 3.3/bin/zopepy foo.py 2010/01/09 00:34:37 GMT+1 $ 4.0/bin/zopepy foo.py 2010/01/09 00:34:37 GMT+0 so in your test, `DateTime(md.CreationDate())` will always be the current time, but with an implicitly added 'GMT+0' while `DateTime()` will be the current time in your local time zone. so if i'm not mistaken, on plone 4.0 the test with fail for you an me (in 'GMT+x' time zones) and pass in the u.s. fun! :) Does anyone know if this change was deliberate, or what may have happened? Martin -- Author of `Professional Plone Development`, a book for developers who want to work with Plone. See http://martinaspeli.net/plone-book

3 3

ZTK compatibility testing
by Christian Theune 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

Hi, as promised I'm currently trying to write down the instructions for running ZTK tests. I need some feedback on our process. I figured there are various scenarios for which we have tools: 1. Ensure that a branch of the ZTK stays in working order For that the ZTK has test runners created by z3c.recipe.compattest which ensures that the individual tests of the ZTK packages with their respective dependencies using the specific ZTK versions are ok. This helps when evolving the versions in the ZTK. Those should be run nightly as is done by some of the buildbots. 2. Ensure that a change of a package doesn't break the set 2a: ensuring compatibility with a specific branch of the set The developer working on package X can use a compat test runner and a specific ZTK buildout configuration to run the other packages' tests combined with the development version of package X. This can/should be done by individual developers for the (newest/olders?) ZTK version they target their change for. If we can encode the "target ZTK" version for a specific package in that packages' configuration then we can also have nightly builds that perform this verification automatically. I'm not sure how to encode that, though, because the relation between the package and the ZTK is usually defined the other way around. 2b: ensuring ongoing compatibility of the trunks In addition I wonder how the various trunk versions of ZTK packages should relate to each other. Should they always build? Should we accept breakage of all trunks with each other or not? Also, there is not version of the ZTK (I think) that specifies 'use the trunk of everything', right? Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

2 1

Buildbot owners: how and where to send build notifications
by Christian Theune 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

Hi, I took Tres' quick explanation of how the daily 'Zope tests: 6 OK' is created and put the instruction into the ZTK documentation for automated build systems: http://docs.zope.org/zopetoolkit/process/buildbots.html *I* encourage everyone who runs recurring/regular checks of any kind that ensure the quality of the code base to start sending messages there (ideally one every 24 hours). Over time we may have to improve readability, but for now I guess more is better. :) Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

1 0

Zope Tests: 6 OK
by Zope Tests Summarizer 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

Summary of messages to the zope-tests list. Period Thu Mar 4 12:00:00 2010 UTC to Fri Mar 5 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: Thu Mar 4 20:37:17 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013677.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.11 Python-2.4.6 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Mar 4 20:39:17 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013678.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12 Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Mar 4 20:41:17 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013679.html Subject: OK : Zope-2.12-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Mar 4 20:43:17 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013680.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Mar 4 20:45:17 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013681.html Subject: OK : Zope-trunk-alltests Python-2.6.4 : Linux From: Zope Tests Date: Thu Mar 4 20:47:17 EST 2010 URL: http://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-tests/2010-March/013682.html

1 0

Re: [Zope-dev] Possible DateTime timezone-related regression in Zope 2.12
by Laurence Rowe 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

2010/1/10 <zopyxfilter(a)gmail.com>: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Martin Aspeli wrote: >> Wichert Akkerman wrote: >>> On 2010-1-10 04:36, Martin Aspeli wrote: >>>> so in your test, `DateTime(md.CreationDate())` will always be >>>> the current time, but with an implicitly added 'GMT+0' while >>>> `DateTime()` will be the current time in your local time zone. >>>> so if i'm not mistaken, on plone 4.0 the test with fail for you >>>> an me (in 'GMT+x' time zones) and pass in the u.s. fun! :) >>>> >>>> Does anyone know if this change was deliberate, or what may >>>> have happened? >>> Have you looked at >>> http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/log/Zope/trunk/lib/python/DateTime?rev=95999 >>> >>> > for hints? >> >> Yes, there are various timezone related changes, e.g. >> >> http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/changeset/81213/Zope/trunk/lib/python/DateTime >> >> > http://zope3.pov.lt/trac/changeset/85830/Zope/trunk/lib/python/DateTime >> >> It's hard to know whether this was an intended change or not, and >> if so, how to deal with the breakage in a way that's compatible >> with 2.10 and 2.12. >> >> I blame Laurence. :-p > Better blame DateTime :-) > Fixing one issue in DateTime is likely to trigger another new bug. > The DateTime is just fragile. I believe the current behaviour is intentional to preserve backwards compatibility. See the discussion starting here: https://mail.zope.org/pipermail/zope-dev/2007-October/030042.html Maybe it was 'fixed' on 2.10 branch some time later. Laurence

3 4

Zope3 sessions and database conflicts
by Hermann Himmelbauer 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

Hi, For quite some time I see messages like this in my z3.log: 2010-03-02T16:27:14 WARNING ZopePublication Competing writes/reads at /BSPSite/act/++vh++http:zis.act.at:80/bankneu/++/images/sponsor_logo.png: database conflict error (oid 0x063f, class BTrees.OOBTree.OOBucket, serial this txn started with 0x038484dc7d5ac044 2010-03-02 14:52:29.379960, serial currently committed 0x038484ff3c6b5455 2010-03-02 15:27:14.160763) I followed an advice from the zope-dev list and added some debug messages in ZODB.Connection.py where the objects are registered for writing. The following debug messages (I print the key/values of the object in question) occur before and after the database conflict error: ------------------- 2010-03-02T16:27:14 DEBUG zbsp keys: ['6ZZzgjNK0p.bIIlruXb4JkDo-T0J-XipPcVFGtcj0 LH6dMdI9akYvg', ......... , '7MmOPQOlkAHoa3T nydH9IIgKBqoVyn3Q.yH6OXJeLj7epObIy3M5Lg'] ----------- 2010-03-02T16:27:14 DEBUG zbsp values: [<zope.session.session.SessionData object at 0x43723bec>, <zope.session.session.SessionData object at 0x4372356c>, <zope.session.session.SessionData object at 0x437233ec>, ......... <zope.session.session.SessionData object at 0x436b586c>, <zope.session.session.SessionData object at 0x436b532c>, <zope.session.session.SessionData object at 0x43640b6c>,<zope.session.session.SessionData object at 0x436b572c>] ------------------- So it seems these are the session data containers. I wonder why they are written? Perhaps this happens when somebody else is logging into the system (so a new session is added) and others are concurrently reading from the session? However, this would mean that the session mechanism has a flaw, as this is a standard procedure? Any ideas of how to fix this? Best Regards, Hermann -- hermann(a)qwer.tk GPG key ID: 299893C7 (on keyservers) FP: 0124 2584 8809 EF2A DBF9 4902 64B4 D16B 2998 93C7

3 2

Summary of today's developer meeting
by Christian Theune 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

Hi, here's my first shot at a summary of today's meeting. I found the meeting itself very positive and energetic - thanks again to everyone who joined. If anyone knows another good place to announce this summary (we should be more visible to the outside world!), please feel free to post them (or link to them) somewhere and maybe tell me for the future. Cheers, Christian -- Christian Theune · ct(a)gocept.com gocept gmbh & co. kg · forsterstraße 29 · 06112 halle (saale) · germany http://gocept.com · tel +49 345 1229889 0 · fax +49 345 1229889 1 Zope and Plone consulting and development

14 22

Uses of the ZTK and how it relates to management
by Jim Fulton 05 Mar '10

05 Mar '10

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:14 PM, Fabio Tranchitella <kobold(a)kobold.it> wrote: > * 2010-03-03 20:41, Chris McDonough wrote: >> Why wouldn't that be worked out here? Is it because you just want the >> mechanics of such a project done elsewhere without having to see it >> talked about on this maillist? Or is it because you disagree that it >> should be done? Or... what? > > The main issue is related to the different use cases we have for the ZTK: > some people use (or want to use) the ZTK as a monolithic set of packages > that can be considered "somehow" the upgrade path from zope3 with the > exclusion of zope.app.* (if possible). > > Others (like me and you, Chris) see the ZTK as a set of core packages > (mainly the bicycle repair kit, which is not the only self-contained subset > of useful packages though) plus a huge load of dependencies we are bringing > forward from the "old" zope3 releases. Others, like me and Martijn and probably many many others, see the ZTK as a set of packages that can be used in various subsets and combination. We want as few dependencies as possible. We also want a configuration of versions that are known to work together because they are tested together. We want stability and we want processes that will help us move forward. I don't think the people who want to advance Blue Bream are really all that different. > Our points of view are totally different, I don't think so. Where we seem to differ is on the specific point of change management, and especially testing. > and I suppose the first group of > people fear that fragmentation can influence the quality and stability of > the ZTK as a whole. The ZTK was created in part to deal with instability issues arising from people working on parts without testing the whole. > In my opinion, we can only gain defining explicitly the bicycle repair kit > if somebody is willing to maintain it (and I refer to documentation and > marketing stuff, not code because it is already very stable). If this > cannot be done with consensus on zope-dev, but a group of people is really > interested in it, I don't think it can be or should be stopped and, TBH, I > don't see how it can influence the ZTK. I don't think anyone is objecting to marketing efforts. Even these core components will need maintenance and updates from time to time. *An* important question is how these changes will be ma naged in the context of the larger community. Jim -- Jim Fulton

6 10

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Zope-Dev March 2010