Closed rodfersou closed 7 years ago
@rodfersou Are you still working on this?
@puittenbroek yes, but we've been busy with other stuff; can you help?
@hvelarde I'll see what I can do! There aren't that many grok elements
Having some problems getting codeanalysis working locally. Working on it :)
Travis issue seem related to failing Firefox.. :(
I have no idea what's going on; we'll need to debug.
@puittenbroek we're facing the same issue in other packages and I have various PR waiting for a fix.
@puittenbroek seems we still have some RF tests failing in Plone 4.3 probably because of an issue in latest release.
@puittenbroek I finally was able to ran the tests locally and I can confirm we have 3 tests failing.
we're currently working on a customer project and we're not going to be able to take a look on this until next week, probably; feel free to dig further if you can.
@rodfersou we're not going to be able to completely remove the dependency on five.grok until we remove the dependency on collective.z3cform.widgets.
@hvelarde I'll see if I can get robot test running locally, usually my laptop (ubuntu) disagrees :)
@puittenbroek bin/buildout annotate
is there to answer those questions: https://travis-ci.org/collective/collective.polls/jobs/218242509#L938
this is what I did locally:
/opt/firefox
PATH=/opt/firefox:$PATH bin/test
instead of running tests, I suggest you to try to replicate manually what the test is trying to achieve; these are the tests that are failing:
you should run buildout with something like bin/buildout buildout:test-eggs=collective.cover[tests]
in order to be able to tests all features.
@hvelarde Yes, thanks I'll try the firefox thing later if I have time :) For now I fixed the two issues.
Test are failing in 4.3 due to buildout not yielding the test
part.
I've had this in other projects as well, strange thing is that the 4.2 IS working properly.
Do any other builds fail on this? Seem related to the buildout.plonetest
changes?
@puittenbroek I made some refactor and I think I'm going to leave the utility with the old name as that's a breaking change and I would have to release as 2.0; the whole utility is somehow useless, IMO, but then we need to do a deeper refactor.
I working on fixing an issue in collective.cover that is breaking the tests here.
Okay, yeah I found the utility name confusing. Especially in combination with the content class having the same naming and same interface name :)
IMO, there are many things in this package that are overcomplicated and I dislike that; you know, when people discover the hammer they want to hit nails everywhere ;-)
also, the scope of the PR is clear: get rid of Grok.
closes #89
Task still in progress