On 12 Sep 2005, at 17:12, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:04:18 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
Here's the result of my refactoring/rewriting for the tests in
question:
http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch/?
rev=38439&view=rev
Geoff, as the one with
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 16:04:18 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> Here's the result of my refactoring/rewriting for the tests in question:
>
> http://svn.zope.org/CMF/branches/geoffd-cachingpolicymanager-branch/?
> rev=38439&view=rev
>
> Geoff, as the one with the most "domain knowledge" as far as th
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 16:33:48 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> How about a compromise: I'll spend a little time tomorrow rewriting
> that test module so it does not use ZopeTestCase at all.
Thanks, Jens! I'm pretty unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the
minimalist test fixtures that most of the C
On Fri, 09 Sep 2005 08:45:05 -0500, Paul Winkler wrote:
> Yes! Maybe PortalTestCase.py should be moved into CMFTestCase?
> Certainly by zope 2.9 I think we should not ship PortalTestCase with
> Zope. Maybe in the next 2.8 release, ZopeTestCase/PortalTestCase.py
> could give a deprecation warning
On 8 Sep 2005, at 18:24, Geoff Davis wrote:
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:45:54 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
All those tests run fine for me using your branch and a vanilla Zope
2.7.6. I'd make a wild guess and say it's your setup.
Could be. Did you try removing the lines in
test_Template304H
On Thu, 08 Sep 2005 17:45:54 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
>
> All those tests run fine for me using your branch and a vanilla Zope
> 2.7.6. I'd make a wild guess and say it's your setup.
Could be. Did you try removing the lines in test_Template304Handling.py
that clean up the profile_registry?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Alexander Limi wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:20:02 +0200, Geoff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively you can create a function that checks the modification
>> times
>> for the content and for all portlets as well. Embed that composi
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 05:39:45 +0200, Alexander Limi wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:20:02 +0200, Geoff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Alternatively you can create a function that checks the modification
>> times
>> for the content and for all portlets as well. Embed that composite time
>
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 22:20:02 +0200, Geoff Davis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Alternatively you can create a function that checks the modification
times
for the content and for all portlets as well. Embed that composite time
in your ETag and you're all set. ESI would be cool, too, but I'm not
b
> Chris McDonough suggested an interesting way to do a poor-man's ESI: use
> Apache's server side includes.
That's an interesting idea. On the Zope side, you'd just have to set
up your templates to spit out html containing SSI directives, obviously
no problem.
But what's involved in the Apache con
On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 12:30:47 -0700, Alec Mitchell wrote:
>> If you write your ETags in an appropriate way, this works beautifully for
>> views. Consider an ETag that consists of a string containing (1) the
>> content object's modification date, (2) the user name for the currently
>> authenticated
On 3 Sep 2005, at 21:00, Geoff Davis wrote:
IMHO they should not fail, they just should not be run. People with a
"normal" CMF 1.5-based setup and without ZopeTestCase should not see
failing tests because another third-party package is not installed.
That's confusing.
Well, it's not exactly a
On Sat, 03 Sep 2005 08:47:34 +0100, Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
> On 2 Sep 2005, at 23:49, Geoff Davis wrote:
>> So you would be OK if the tests just failed if ZopeTestCase were not
>> installed?
>
> IMHO they should not fail, they just should not be run. People with a
> "normal" CMF 1.5-based setu
13 matches
Mail list logo
