tings for the index are the same in catalog.xml and in
the current catalog: do nothing.
- When at least one setting is different, remove the index and add it
with the new settings.
This seems more difficult to implement though.
Does this make sense?
Or has this been debated
Hi yuppie,
Sorry for reacting so late ro your swift reaction.
yuppie, on 2007-03-02:
> Hi Maurits!
>
>
> Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> So here are some points, with suggested changes to the _initIndexes
>> function in exportimport.py. The tests even run after this, so it
&
yuppie, on 2007-03-02:
> Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> So here are some points, with suggested changes to the _initIndexes
>> function in exportimport.py. The tests even run after this, so it
>> seems these changes do not break anything. But I have not *added*
>> test
w that DST is involved.
I want to move to a browser view anyway.
But does this point to a deeper problem? Does something need to be
fixed in CMF or Zope?
In other words: does this just go wrong in a few isolated places that
need to be fixed individually or does this need a fix in on
Maurits van Rees, on 2007-03-29:
> I see the same problem in a Plone Product of mine (eXtremeManagement)
> where bookings added after the DST get listed a day earlier in one
> page template. When I add a booking somewhere in November (I can
> choose the booking date) that one gets
gt;> self.assertEqual(adapted.body, _CATALOG_BODY % ('', _ZCTEXT_XML))
>>
>> then the second test throws an error!
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> Going in with the pdb also throws that error when you try to print
>> adapted.body twice.
>>
if child.nodeName != 'column':
continue
col = str(child.getAttribute('value'))
+ if child.hasAttribute('remove'):
+# Remove the column if it is there
+if col in self.context.schema()[:]:
+
Jens Vagelpohl, on 2007-05-15:
> The mailing list is a bad place for patches.
True.
> Please file a collector issue in the CMF collector and attach your
> patches there.
Done:
http://www.zope.org/Collectors/CMF/483
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ [NL]
object has no attribute 'handler'
These are unavoidable when you use the listUpgradeSteps function
though, as that returns a list with a list of dicts which indeed have
no 'handler' attribute.
I hope this report helps someone who has more clue. ;-) Maybe I can
take another look la
change to eXtremeManagement in the importVarious function
above logical? I committed it already, so it had better be. :)
B. These importVarious steps that eXtremeManagement and other
products define, and that cannot be mapped to other handlers,
are they good pr
Wichert Akkerman, on 2007-06-23:
> Previously Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman, on 2007-06-23:
>> > I misread the interface; that only specified what should happen if no
>> > timezone is given. The interface says that the method should return a
>> >
the first Dublin Core `Date` element qualified by
'effective' is returned as a unicode string if a qualified
element is defined, otherwise, an empty unicode string is
returned. The string is formatted '-MM-DD H24:MN:SS TZ'.
""
Maurits van Rees, on 2007-06-23:
> 2. What needs to happen on the import tab now on trunk? We want a
>drop down that lists all extension profiles. When I select one of
>those extension profiles, should I get a list of only those steps
>for which this profile has an xml
fore I started
with GS profiles. I should probably read that again now I have more
experience with GS.
> anyway, hope this clears things up.
Sure does. Thanks.
I gathered some things I learned about GS the last days and put it on
my weblog, quoting you extensively. :)
http://maurits.vanrees.or
ening,
>> but it sounds a bit wrong to me.
>
> i agree that it's awkward, but it is actually the right behaviour.
> ideally the profile check would happen before the dependencies are run.
On the other hand: this only happens when you have manually selected
an impor
s might do the
trick too. Thanks for the tip.
Other ideas anyone?
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ [NL]
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"Do not worry about your difficulties in computers,
I can assure you mine are still greater."
__
00Z
>
> I can call this in my view class via
> self.startdate = self.context.CreationDate()
>
> and call this in my template via
>
> view/startdate?
Yes. You need to do the tal:define above first though, unless there
is some other magic (well, code) that hooks u
object has no attribute 'kantoorsetup'
I went in with a zopectl debug session a few weeks ago to remove such
a step manually from the registry. That worked, but having a method
that you can call in an uninstall method that does this for you, would
be better.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.
u, then
without declaring a dependency the cache.xml just does not get
processed, which is exactly what the user wants then.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ [NL]
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"Do not worry about your difficulties in computers,
I can ass
er that actually applies the profile. But I would
hope that the upgradeStep would handle that for me. So: is the
profile attribute of an upgradeStep meant for something else?
I hope someone can shed some light on my clouded vision of how the
upgradeSteps are supposed to work. Exampl
Maurits van Rees, on 2007-08-21:
> I am having problems understanding how the new upgradeStep
> functionality of GenericSetup works. Maybe the most important
> question: is there a product that already uses this, so I can look at
> its code as an example?
I did not get any respons
I sent this message earlier this week via gmane but it seemed to have
problems at the time and I did not see the message show up. So I try
again. If anyone wants to react you can take your time as I will be
on vacation the next two weeks. :)
Maurits van Rees, on 2007-08-21:
> I am hav
ght. Or a warning could be displayed: "This profile has upgrade
steps available; do you want to run them?"
> hopefully my above explanation helps clarify the intent of the upgradeSteps
> directive.
Certainly. Thanks a lot.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/ [N
ller code from a client project where we remove an
obsolete import step.
registry = setup.getImportStepRegistry()
if u'lumberjack' in registry.listSteps():
print >> out, "Found stale lumberjack import step, removing it."
registry._registered.pop(u&#
continue
if obj_id not in parent.objectIds():
I have tests for this.
The current behaviour is not something that is actually *wanted* by
anyone, right?
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, do
Maurits van Rees, on 2008-02-26:
> Hi,
>
> Say you have for example an actions.xml like this:
>
>
>
>
>
> So you want to remove the history object. When you run a GS extension
> profile with this file twice, you get an AttributeError: at the
> second ru
a buildout with CMF trunk and Zope 2.11
and there it indeed fails with my code and passes with yuppies code.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, don't let them take it away." [Barlow Girl]
specify in catalog.xml. Apparently it is hard/impossible to
reliably compare the existing and the wanted index. So GenericSetup
has no choice but to remove the existing index and make a new one.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This
ficially set up
CMF for testing? Or just a buildout/bundle I can use?
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, don't let them take it away." [Barlow Girl]
___
yuppie, on 2008-02-28:
>> I caused this failure. I thought yuppie fixed it yesterday.
>
> I fixed it in GS trunk, but forgot to backport the fix to the 1.3 branch
> which is used by CMF 2.1. Can you port it back?
Done in revision 84380.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maur
the newer QI the name
of the other profile is listed instead of the default profile.
Meanwhile on trunk (and on the 1.6rc5 I released on the cheese shop
last night) I have removed the upgrade profile as I do not like the
side effects of having two profiles.
Hm, hiding profiles by using
Products
Thanks for the comments, Tres and Hanno.
Hanno Schlichting, on 2008-05-16:
> Hi.
>
> Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> This is on Plone 3.0 with CMFQuickInstaller 2.0.4.
>
> I think you are on the wrong list here. QuickInstaller is a part of
> Plone and not CMF and should b
Tres Seaver, on 2008-05-19:
>> Can you add a ticket for this last issue?
>
> I'm assuming that you mean against QI? Because I see nothing which
> needs changing in GS here.
Correct.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.n
? Or would
they be general upgradesteps defined by GenericSetup, available for
any products?
I *could* imagine for example a general workflow upgrade step that
reapplies the security settings based on some new workflow settings
that your product has just defined. Although really that could be
do
Rob Miller, on 2008-05-20:
> Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> And where are the original typeinfo and workflow upgrade steps
>> defined? Are they in some other zcml file of your product? Or would
>> they be general upgradesteps defined by GenericSetup, available for
>>
something in a plone package
inside a bundle, Wichert asked me to update the history file and I
ended up wrongly updating the history file of CMFPlone because I never
even saw the real history file belonging to that package. :-)
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work |
subversion (and has at least one file in it). Aha, when you
create an sdist in a subversion export (instead of a checkout) then
the docs dir does not get included. Probably because setup.py does
not point to it.
With 'bdist_egg' the docs dir is indeed never included, unless you
have it in
Wichert Akkerman, on 2008-05-29:
> Previously Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman, on 2008-05-29:
>> > Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> >> >But personally I like having it inside the "main"
>> >> >folder, so in yo
Wichert Akkerman, on 2008-05-29:
> Previously Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> Wichert Akkerman, on 2008-05-29:
>> > Previously Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> >> Wichert Akkerman, on 2008-05-29:
>> >> > Previously Philipp von Weitershausen wrote:
>> >
ve. For all other use cases an sdist is fine. At least that seems
to be the current train of throught in the Grokiverse.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, don't let them take it away." [Barlow Gir
ate where you don't have to touch anything "up high" once it's
> working.
Suits me fine. Anyone in favour of updating the ZopeSkel templates to
fit that pattern? (Sorry, bit out of topic here on the cmf list as
there are no cmf skeletons there. Care to add one?
le somewhere that I can tweak. Does anyone
know how to do that?
BTW, I noticed this when making a checkout of the core development
buildout of Plone, branch 3.2:
https://svn.plone.org/svn/plone/buildouts/plone-coredev/branches/3.2
Not everyone using that checkout will have ssh access to svn.zope.
Rob Miller, on 2008-08-05:
> Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> Come to think of it, when my username on my laptop would have been
>> 'mauritsvanrees' this checkout probably would have worked, so there is
>> probably an ssh config file somewhere that I can tweak. Doe
have messages like that translated. :-)
(Now why have I not noticed this before...?)
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, don't let them take it away." [Barlow Girl]
_
a requires 'Products.GenericSetup==1.3.3'.
So the question is: why are those products depending on GS 1.3.3? GS
1.4 has been out for a while.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, don't let them take i
t my
testing Fu fails to point me in the right direction here.
GS introduces new features, but I am not aware of any backwards
incompatible changes. Am I correct in that?
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, d
t) pulls in
Products.GenericSetup 1.4.1 from the cheese shop. I am curious: why
is it not in the src/ here?
The tests *do* pass there, also the individual ones for CMFDefault and
GS. I don't see what the causes the difference. With Zope 2.11.1 in
that buildout instead of 2.10.6 th
Maurits van Rees, on 2008-09-11:
> The tests *do* pass there, also the individual ones for CMFDefault and
> GS. I don't see what the causes the difference. With Zope 2.11.1 in
> that buildout instead of 2.10.6 the test results were the same.
Okay, I was using an old Zope 2.1
-
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits.vanrees.org/
Work | http://zestsoftware.nl/
"This is your day, don't let them take it away." [Barlow Girl]
___
Zope-CMF maillist - Zope-CMF@lists.zope.org
http://mail.zope.org/mailman/lis
Hello yuppie!
yuppie, on 2009-04-16:
> Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> So my question is: is this a sane way of doing this? Is it alright to
>> specify a version (or really a profile revision) as source when that
>> version does not yet exist? It works fine as far as I can tell.
dd that test to the trunk this behavior will become officially
> supported...
Ah, I meant that this test is already in trunk. The versions there
are slightly different but not in a relevant way.
trunk:
1.1 > 1.0 < 1.2
me:
1.1.9 > 1.1.2 < 1.2
and those two comparisons
Wichert Akkerman, on 2009-04-17:
> Previously Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> Since I made some notes while investigating, I might as well share
>> them. So here are some random observations for reference, with some
>> CMFPlone versions thrown in for good measure.
>>
>
e executed when applying profile A as well, which is not
happening. Perhaps there is a check that somehow treats profile A and
B differently?
I would say go in with a pdb and see if the traceback tells you
anything about why the setuphandler gets executed again.
--
Maurits van Rees | http://maurits
if we
need more zcml constructs here.
I could do these changes (on a branch of course).
Questions
-
Is this feature interesting for inclusion in GenericSetup?
Is it in scope for 1.5.x?
Is anyone already registering profiles using numbers other than 1
(BASE) or 2 (EXTENSION)?
Do you see a
likely to confuse people.
> GenericSetup is more than complex enough already, IMO.
>
> Maurits van Rees wrote:
>> Use case
>>
>>
>> For our use case we assume that you have made an add-on product. It
>> has an EXTENSION profile. You have applied t
55 matches
Mail list logo
