[03:17] Merge to rocketfuel@canonical.com/launchpad--devel--0: Must specify both project name and product name to identify a distinct product (patch-774) [03:24] Merge to rocketfuel@canonical.com/launchpad--devel--0: changed bug listing to list package/product assignments, with corresponding status, severity, priority, etc. (patch-775) [03:36] BradB: If you are still around, give me a ping when everything you want has been merged - I'm doing a dogfood update today. [04:02] oh, pqm stopped hanging... [04:03] s,hanging,looping, [04:03] i guess i have to resubmit my last merge request though [04:04] oh, shit, i didn't want to resubmit [04:04] patch-775 is what i wanted in there [04:06] stub: by tomorrow i'm hoping to land a few of the search widgets on the bug listing. i banged my head for a while on trying to figure out how to make a search form using a schema. something like browser:schemadisplay, but Zope 3 certainly wasn't trying to help me out on this task. [04:08] Did you work it out? I haven't tried generating or handling forms from schemas apart form using the addform/editform gumf. [04:09] no. i gave up. i might putzky around when i get back from the grocery store though. a mix of actually trying to make things work slash grokking more of zope 3. [04:11] stub: oh, that reminds me. [04:11] stub: i was going to ask...i think we need to add owners to assignments. [04:12] the bug listing now shows assignments, but since there's no assignment/owner/displayname, all the user'll see in that column is "-" for now [04:12] If you have found a use case, sure (or even if you havn't - nice information to have even if it is never displayed or used) [04:12] stub: it's always displayed. check the bug listing (which is really a listing of assignments) [04:14] So who should become the owner of all the existing assignments? I might set them to the owner of the bug. [04:15] stub: i think setting them to the bug submitter (i.e. bug "owner" :) is sufficient at this early stage. === BradB is now known as BradB|brb [04:21] !alindeman:*! Quick services work so I can fix some b0rked access list; downtime should be less than a minute === ChanServ [ChanServ@services.] has joined #launchpad === BradB|brb is now known as BradB [05:26] stub: hm, i guess Zope 3 is missing a browser:form directive. [05:28] i want a directive where i can say: for this name, on this object, render a form using this schema. [05:28] Similar to registering vocabularies by name? Love those flat namespaces ;) [05:28] oic - used to attach views to objects [05:28] That would be cool [05:29] well, to make a form that does something that isn't adding or editing. [05:29] i'm not sure what browser:schemadisplay does, because i haven't actually implemented an small example to try it out, but at best, it's very oddly named. [05:29] editform sort of works similarly to what you want already [05:30] display indicates render-only to me, although that would be pointless because a normal boring view attached to that interface would be just as good... [05:31] (unless it provides a standard template) [05:31] stub: it's possible that browser:addform, browser:editform and browser:form could be collapsed into one directive. from the perspective of someone with a human-sized brain, i really hate when five different variations are given for doing the same conceptual thing, due to implementation details bubbling up to the UI. [05:32] for me those are all "creating a form" [05:32] addform and editform would be difficult to collapse, because one is a view on an object that already exists and the other is a view on something else that lets you create an object. They both would benefit from having an abstracted out 'form' though. [05:33] i don't really give an ass that one happens to add an object, one happens to make changes to an object, and one submits a form to be emailed [05:35] it was slightly to discouraging to see /Stephan Richter/ saying earlier that Zope 3 is too hard. :) === BradB tries out browser:schemadisplay, just to confirm what i think it does [05:39] I suspect it might be - way too much abstraction in all those interfaces. Too many tiny chunks that nobody uses make the bigger chunks you want to use more confusing. [05:40] (IVocabulary is defined in IBaseVocabulary, IIterableVocabulary and some others - but nobody uses anything by IVocabulary) [05:41] stub: not enough development going on by the people that use it to deliver things that work on billable time, i fear. [05:42] Mmm... [05:45] but somehow it still feels no worse than what i've developed web apps with before (e.g. webware is not much more fun when you realize, "oh crap, i need to write my own perms system") [05:46] and, well, WRT the complaints stephan himself has, 1. we've known for a long time that TTW schemas are on the way and 2. if stephan's not happy with something, that probably means it'll be improved soonish. [05:48] Its more fun than Zope2 anyway ;) [05:48] hell yeah [05:49] as complex as it sometimes feels, i'm hooked [05:50] I've lived a pretty isolated life and only really played with CGI, Zope2, Zope3 and some Java servelet stuff [05:51] i've done CGI, HTML::Mason, Webware, Zope 2, Zope 3, mod_perl. i think that's all of them. [05:56] Oh - a small stint maintaining embedded perl, which was real scarey ;) [05:56] heh [05:56] hm, what's the name of an adapter factory that creates an adapter that does nothing? [05:57] eh? [05:57] i want to adapter I1 to I2, I2 is a subset of the attributes of I2, so nothing is needed to actually adapt. [05:58] s/attributes of I2/attributes of I1/ [05:58] There is an implicit adapter, in that if you IFoo(obj) and obj already provides IFoo then you just get obj back [05:58] yeah, but this is with b:schemadisplay [05:58] it's telling me it can't adapt my I1 to an I2 [05:59] so i have to say that I1 provides I2, I guess [05:59] instead of registering a "null" adapter to achieve that [05:59] yes. Or have the l1 interface inherit from the l2 one [06:01] oh fuck off === stub kicks pqm [06:02] heh, that was me. i love that bug. [06:02] pqm is not a labomized monkey, it is an autistic one that like to sit in the corner banging its head against the wall ;-( [06:02] heh [06:02] lifeless: pqm ping [06:03] elmo: pqm ping [06:03] stub: i thought you killed the pqm infinite loop earlier? because earlier it was looping on your merge. [06:03] not me. Just happened that the patch I submitted before I went to bed got processed just after I had my morning coffee. [06:04] I don't have that sort of access to chinstrap [06:04] so yeah, b:schemadisplay simply displays those fields. [06:05] wee [06:05] I think you can build what you want using editform to render and validate a form, which can later be wired up into a .zcml directive. [06:07] yeah, i was thinking of doing it that way earlier. a bit of a dirty workaround until browser:form is implemented, but it'll do, i suppose. [06:07] form = SchemaForm(IFoo, default_ifoo) [06:07] form.render(request) [06:08] result = form.handle(request) # returns an object() providing IFoo with attributes all set [06:08] sweeeet. [06:08] The zcml directive would just register a SchemaForm with a givenname and template [06:09] Oh... need a form.validate in there, and request can be passed into the constructor [06:10] is this science fiction, or you giving an example of what to put in the view? [06:11] It is science fiction, but I think it can be worked up fairly easily using the existing editform === stub crosses fingers [06:11] yeah, it would seem that way [06:13] But not this weekend ;) [06:13] Oops... need to head off before the shops close... [06:24] There is a patch in the queue to add owners to *BugAssignment and the Malone & test case fallout btw. === stub buggers off === bob2 [rob@bob2.user] has left #launchpad [] === BradB is now known as BradB|away === doko [doko@dsl-082-082-210-000.arcor-ip.net] has joined #launchpad [11:44] Merge to rocketfuel@canonical.com/launchpad--production--1.3: cherry pick fixed ArchiveLocation instantiation (patch-1) === Kinnison -> out [11:52] don't forget to put on your lens [12:51] morning, ish [12:57] hi [12:58] a couple of python wizards are arriving at my place today, to stay in the spare room for a week or two. [12:58] There's a pypy (python-in-python) sprint in vilnius. [01:18] cool [01:49] If my ubuntu CDs arrive before they leave, I'll spread a few around, and give some to Laura Crighton to take back to Strakt. [01:49] if not, POV have a cd burner. [03:52] Merge to rocketfuel@canonical.com/launchpad--devel--0: *BugAssignment.owner (patch-776) [04:02] Merge to rocketfuel@canonical.com/launchpad--devel--0: polish malone (patch-777) === BradB|away is now known as BradB [05:07] morning [05:07] SteveA: ping === carlos [~carlos@69.Red-80-33-181.pooles.rima-tde.net] has joined #launchpad === carlos [~carlos@69.Red-80-33-181.pooles.rima-tde.net] has joined #launchpad === BradB [~bradb@modemcable165.196-131-66.mc.videotron.ca] has joined #launchpad === kiko [~kiko@200-181-092-174.bsace705.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br] has joined #launchpad [10:24] hi Brad [10:24] hi [10:26] on phone :) === kiko_ [~kiko@200-181-092-174.bsace705.dsl.brasiltelecom.net.br] has joined #launchpad [10:34] back! [10:34] maybe i should take this to #zope3-dev === kiko_ is now known as kiko-afk [11:26] BradB: I reckon I can look at doing this form thing early next week. Do you think it would speed up development? [11:27] SteveA: yes. e.g. for the bug search form, it takes too much effort to hand-code HTML widgets + validation. [11:27] yeah [11:27] I did do something a bit like this for my first zope3 project [11:28] but it was what I ended up near, after hacking / customizing / forking edit-form [11:28] and it was a mess [11:28] eek [11:28] so, I think your ideas of doing it afresh, and simply, are better [11:28] in the abscense of this, i'll probably have to hand-code HTML, but it'll just cost more money to maintain until a make-my-life-easier browser:form directive exists [11:29] it would be useful to me if you hand-code this one in HTML. then, it becomes the first candidate for replacement [11:29] but it provides a real first example [11:29] yes, i will, because i want something working this weekend no matter what. [11:29] (e.g. even if hand-coding is necessary, which for now it is) [11:29] ok. let's talk about it more next week, when you've done the form, and I've emptied some of my todo list [11:30] sure [11:30] thanks [11:30] thanks for bringing this up! [11:30] no prob :) [11:30] I think this might lead to more sane add/edit forms eventually too [11:30] i hope so. [11:30] if you get an example with more than one form on a page, let me know [11:31] ok [11:31] I'd rather work from a real-life requirement than a kind of "it would be neat", of course [11:31] yes