On Aug 18, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Guilherme Salgado wrote: > On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 07:25 +1200, Tim Penhey wrote: >> On Thu, 19 Aug 2010 07:08:30 Francis J. Lacoste wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree with Salgado, I don't think removing that checks is the right >>> solution. >>> >>> And I don't really think there is a problem either. create_view and >>> create_initialized_view have a layer parameter. Why don't you use that >>> parametere? >> >> It isn't just in unit tests, but in page tests too. >> >> the TALES expression branch/fmt:link/+edit >> >> gets converted to: >> canonical_url(branch, view_name="+edit") >> >> And we do use that type of TALES expression all over the place. >> >> If that is on a bug page, then the current request implements the BugLayer. >> With my new restrictive change, the +edit view isn't defined for the >> BugLayer, >> so it blows up. >> >> This is the guts of the problem, not the unit tests. > > I see. In that case, I'd be in favour of your second idea, or maybe > even a simple mapping of rootsites to layers. Mostly because even > though the view check in canonical_url() is not doing the correct thing, > it still catches 404 links.
Your second idea sounds fine. I was hoping there was already some easy reasonable path to get what you need, but yeah, I dug around, and I don't see one. Adding the info to allvhosts would fit into one structure we have already. That's the most attractive thing I see from my perspective. (I'd be tempted to make the allvhosts data structure become utility registrations eventually, but that's another discussion.) Gary _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
