[Grok-dev] Re: we need a MethodGrokker
faassen at startifact.com
Thu May 22 08:33:51 EDT 2008
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
> I have introduced a MethodGrokker base class on a grok branch called
> 'philikon-methodgrokker' (the MethodGrokker base class will obviously
> move into Martian before the merging happens).
> All tests pass except those that check whether permissions used in the
> following way exist:
> class MyXMLRPC(grok.XMLRPC):
> # otherwise empty class
> With the new MethodGrokker, this won't generate an exception because the
> referenced permission is never actually applied to any method (because
> the class is empty).
> The question is: Do we want to keep raising an error in this case, or
> shall we go the "easy" (and actually cleaner) way of not doing anything?
> Note that an empty XMLRPC class doesn't do anything anyway (which is
> probably more worth of an error than anything else).
If it's just this case, I wouldn't mind not doing anything, though
strictly we'd like all grok.require() statements to be checked...
So I'm inclined to do what you suggest: I think we could make a
MethodGrokker raise an error if no methods are found. This is always a
mistake as far as I can see, after all. We should only do this if
methods might not be incoming from a base class, and I think it should
be done during Grok time, but I think this could be done, right?
More information about the Grok-dev