[ZODB-Dev] breaking out the transaction module from ZODB

[Chris McDonough]

On Nov 9, 2007, at 9:43 AM, Jim Fulton wrote:

>
>>> Yawn.  IMO, the test command in setuptools is a waste of time,  
>>> because it doesn't work with anything else.
>>
>> It runs all the tests, even the doctests, if thats what you mean.   
>> See the "additional_tests" hair in the test modules.
>
> My point is that the meta data you added to the setup.py only works  
> with setup.py.  It isn't accessible to any other test runners.  I  
> shouldn't have yawned.  It is significant that the tests work. :)  I  
> just don't find this way of running the tests to be useful.  The  
> first time I work on this package, I'll add a buildout.cfg so I can  
> use the Zope test runner.  At that point, I'll have to deal with  
> these extra requirements in another way (which is no big deal).

What if we caused setup.py to read a buildout.cfg for the  
tests_require package names and we passed these in as tests_require=  
names?  Would that make it all better?

>>> zope.interface is a real requirement.  It is already in  
>>> test_requires.
>>>
>>> Over time, we need to clean up the transaction tests so they don't  
>>> use ZODB.
>>
>> Yeah, given that we're name this thing "transaction", it's an  
>> actually an immediate requirement.
>
> If you are going to spend the time, then, uh, sure. ;)  Seriously,  
> while I would love to see this cleaned up, I don't think I would  
> consider this super urgent.  I guess that depends on competing  
> priorities.

I just deleted the sections of the test_transaction doctests that  
depended on ZODB.  They were actually not really testing transactions,  
they were testing persistent object behavior.  I'll try to put them  
back in a form within ZODB proper, as the test really are testing ZODB  
functionality, not transaction functionality.

>>  There's only one test that uses anything that can't be mocked up  
>> in the transaction package (it uses an actual MappingStorage and a  
>> DB) itself.  It also happens to be the one that fails right now; I  
>> haven't tried to understand it yet.
>
> Gah.  BTW, if you haven't already, you should check for transaction  
> tests lurking in the other ZODB packages.

Good idea.

In the meantime, I've gotten rid of 'zope.transaction' and I've  
created a new top-level 'transaction' package at http://svn.zope.org/transaction/ 
  .  All its tests pass.  It depends only on 'zope.interface', and  
requires 'zope.testing' for running the tests.

- C