Re: pyblosxom future (1.3/2.0)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 07:46:58 -0800, Doug Ransom <idlsfy-UJU/[email protected]> wrote:
> I just joined after the * pyblosxom future (1.3/2.0)*   announcement by
> Will.
> 
> I propose for 1.3, the entire pyblosxom code base and a good chunk of
> the contrib package be provided with unit tests, so they can be
> refactored.  This would make it way easier for people to add or refactor
> code.
> 

agreed - I don't think anybody's opposed to this. Problem is, no one
wants to write them.

> For example, I am struggling with the pycategories code.  I would like
> different html output, and I cannot figure out how to run/debug the code
> without hitting a webserver (I could probably fake a cgi call with
> komodo, but thats not much better).
> 

we'll have to figure something out. Maybe a way to start would be to
write a function which generates Request objects without an actual
request, since almost all functions in pyblosxom act on the request
object.

> It would be cool to have a shipping blog with predefined entries,
> directories, etc., and a way to test/debug any of the plugins.
> 

what do you mean by predefined entries, directories, etc? I agree that
unit tests would be good, but I'm not sure what you mean here.

> I think this would also be a good time to switch to python 2.4 and allow
> the code to use any newer features.

We've talked about moving to python 2.3, but I think we agreed that we
don't want to get 2.4-specific. I don't see any reason to prefer 2.4
over 2.3 that overrides backwards compatibility.

Peace
Bill Mill
bill.mill at gmail.com


-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click