On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 5:34 PM, Godefroid Chapelle <got...@bubblenet.be> wrote: > Tres Seaver wrote: >> >>>> - - Avoid shellling out to run repozo, but rather use its main(), >>>> passing argv. >>> I thought of this but decided to not go that way to test that repozo can >>> actually run on a living database. Even if the code that was there still >>> needs to be modified to achieve that goal. >> >> Computing the path to repozo to run as a script was a bit wonky: I just >> changed the 'main()' function to take optional arguments, which also >> gave me more flexibility in how thigs run (e.g., turning off noisy output). > > I suspect I do not express myself correctly. > > I try to say that repozo should be tested against a database being > mutated (the current test only exercise backups when the db is closed).
That would definitely be much better, but not needed to test Chris' change I think. In any case, you don't need to shell out to test repozo against a database that is being modified. You could use threads, or you could write the database records yourself to, for example, cause a repozo backup while there are partial transaction records. I would prefer not to shell out. > As far as I can understand, THE reason for repozo is to backup without > stopping the ZODB. One of 2 reasons. The other is incremental backups. Jim -- Jim Fulton _______________________________________________ For more information about ZODB, see the ZODB Wiki: http://www.zope.org/Wikis/ZODB/ ZODB-Dev mailing list - ZODB-Dev@zope.org https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zodb-dev
