This is not really a test, but it reuses runUnitTest/runTestSuite
commands, because they are good tools to quickly create ERP5
environment and installing business templates.

To re-build and re-export all* business templates, use this command:

    ./bin/runTestSuite --test_suite=ReExportERP5BusinessTemplateTestSuite

--node_quantity argument can also be used to process multiple
business templates in parallel.

* note that this does not actually handle all business templates, but
only the ones for which coding style test is enabled, because most
business templates for which it is not enabled can not be installed.

This typically produces large diffs that should apply the same
change to many files and ideally, nothing else. We also developed a
simple tool which summarize the diff by detecting the same chunk
present in multiple files, it can be found at
https://lab.nexedi.com/nexedi/erp5/snippets/1171 and also below.

---

from __future__ import print_function
"""report similar hunks in a patch.
"""
__version__ = '0.1'

import argparse
import collections
import codecs
import unidiff # unidiff==0.7.3
import hashlib

parser = argparse.ArgumentParser()
parser.add_argument('patch_file', type=argparse.FileType('r'), default='-', nargs='?')
parser.add_argument('-v', '--verbose', action='count', default=0)
args = parser.parse_args()

patchset = unidiff.PatchSet(codecs.getreader('utf-8')(args.patch_file))

chunks_by_filenames = collections.defaultdict(set)

for patch in patchset:
  for chunk in patch:
    chunk_text = u''.join([unicode(l) for l in chunk])
    chunks_by_filenames[chunk_text].add(patch.path)

for chunk_text, filenames in chunks_by_filenames.items():
  chunk_hash = hashlib.md5(chunk_text.encode('utf-8')).hexdigest()
  print("Chunk %s is present in %s files" % (chunk_hash, len(filenames)))
  if args.verbose:
    print()
    print("\n".join("  " + f for f in sorted(filenames)))
    print()
  if args.verbose > 1:
    print()
    print(chunk_text)
    print()

1b1dbf60 (tests: also consider python unittest failures in
functional tests, 2021-06-16) was not counting properly the cases
where we have selenium failures. In that case we only want to count
selenium failures, if we add with the python failures from
status_dict, we report one extra failures.

The correct approach is to count selenium failures if any and otherwise
count python failures
Co-authored-by: Vincent Pelletier <vincent@nexedi.com>

It can happen that a test running selenium fail in python, but not in selenium,
like for example test_result_module/20210615-CDADEC14/183
To prevent such tests from being reported as PASS, we make the total number of
failures being the sum of the python unittest failures and the selenium failures.

This is follow-up to 5796a17a (core_test: Add test to make sure that
wendelin.core basically works; nexedi/erp5!1429).

In that commit it was said that testWendelinCore

    "currently passes with wendelin.core 1, which is the default.
     It also passes as live test with wendelin.core 2.
     However with wendelin.core 2 it currently fails when run on testnodes
     ...
     because we need to amend ERP5 test driver

     1. to run tests on a real storage instead of in-RAM Mapping Storage(*), and
     2. to spawn WCFS server for each such storage."

This patch addresses that latter problem to run testWendelinCore under
testnode infrastructure.

@rafael and @jerome suggested that we can force a test to be run on a
real storage via `runUnitTest --load --save` or via `--activity_node=n`.

@rafael also suggested not to generally change the testing driver, but instead
make step-by-step progress and first tag each test that uses wendelin.core with an
option. Let's go this way now: runUnitTest/custom_zodb are taught to launch
WCFS server if wendelin.core usage is requested and software is built with
wendelin.core 2.

With both changes combined testWendelinCore should now pass OK when run
on a testnode with both wendelin.core 1 and wendelin.core 2.

This patch is based on a draft patch by @rafael: https://lab.nexedi.com/rafael/erp5/commit/14e3a777.

This patch also relies on recent wendelin.core 2 wcfs.py rework which
exposed functionality to start WCFS server and to further control it:
kirr/wendelin.core@5bfa8cf8.

/cc @tomo, @romain, @jerome, @seb

This also moves all Configurator Workflows in workflow_module to portal_workflow
(workflow_module was an implementation of Workflows based on ERP5 objects and
not using DCWorkflow code).

* Workflows are now defined on on portal_workflow._chains_by_type anymore but,
  as everything else, on the Portal Type itself.
* portal_workflow can contain and work at the same time with legacy and new
  Workflows (ERP5Type/patches/DCWorkflow.py monkey-patching DCWorkflow classes
  to provide the same API).
* Existing Workflow Scripts should work as they are and the code can be updated
  later on to take advantage of the new API:
  + With legacy implementation Workflow {Scripts,Transitions,Worklists,States}
    were in a Folder ({scripts,transitions,worklists,states} attribute) but
    all of these are now in the Workflow itself and their IDs are prefixed
    (PropertySheet-style), for example `script_`. Legacy attributes are
    provided in new implementation to call the new API.
  + When calling a Workflow Script, `container` was bound to its parent, namely
    WF.scripts (Folder) and a Workflow Script could call another. Now `container`
    is bound to the WF itself and Workflow Scripts are in a Workflow directly.
    New implementation `scripts` attribute handle such use case.
  + Override portal_workflow.__getattr__ so that a Workflow Script can call
    another one without prefix.
* Worklist are Predicate: Worklist filter objects based on given criterions and
  thus it makes more sense for a Worklist to be a Predicate (albeit a Predicate
  with only Identity Criterion and nothing else).
  + Criterion Properties:
    * state_variable.
    * local_roles (SECURITY_PARAMETER_ID).
    * Any Workflow Variables with for_catalog == 1.

erp5_performance_test:testWorkflowPerformance were ran to compare DCWorkflow
and ERP5Workflow implementations and it seems to be about 4% slower with the
new implementation (legacy: 7.547, 7.593, 7.618, 7.59, 7.514 and new: 7.842,
7.723, 7.902, 7.837, 7.875).

Work done by Wenjie Zheng, Isabelle Vallet, Sebastien Robin and myself.

In a real ERP5 actions, roles etc are all indexed, so it's more
realistic to simulate update with full indexing.

To avoid too generic names for Products.ERP5SyncML.{Engine,Transport}, prefix
the ZODB Components references with SyncML{Engine,Transport}.

ERP5Wizard: Archived to erp5-archive repository (acked by @jp): not used anymore and not going to be migrated to ZODB Components.

erp5_tiosafe_core and ERP5TioSafe/{Conduit,Tool,Document} are used by SlapOS.
Everything else has not be used at all for many years (and Unit Tests have been
disabled for 7 years now).

eGov: Archived to erp5-archive repository (acked by @jp): not used anymore and not going to be migrated to ZODB Components.

Using the test class name was causing conflicts on some test classes.
CodingStyleTest was a case, all test use CodingStyleTest class with an
environment variable to control which business template is tested. In
this case, we want one log directory for each business template.

Introduce a getLogDirectoryPath method that's supposed to create and
return the path of the directory to use for log and override this method
for the special case of coding style test.

testUpgradeInstanceWithOldDataFs: Old Data.fs was created with `--portal_id=erp5`, so it should be passed for erp5testnode too.

testUpgradeInstanceWithOldDataFs: New Unit Test to check upgrade of old instance to current ERP5 version.

After copying old instance ZODB and SQL from erp5-bin.git, this checks whether
instance can be successfully through upgrader. Introduced because of 140be41d.

Also, move test_data folder to Products.ERP5.tests as this does not need to be in the ZODB.

There are no testVifib (at least not in nexedi/erp5 repository) and
there is only one testLive that there is no reason to skip.

Moved 'git_askpass' shell script to product/ERP5/bin (considering that this
is a very short shell script which hasn't changed in 7 years, no need to move
it to the ZODB which would require creating a temporary file...).

After updating erp5_forge, you should delete 'product/ERP5VCS/' directory
as this will only contain '.pyc' files.

/reviewed-on nexedi/erp5!973

This reverts commit f9f020e3.

This should be tested even if it currently fails with "The operation is insecure"
when trying to upload local ODS files.

* Instead of Person.reference, Person.user_id is now used to log in (fe27a9c3).
* Fields text were renamed to follow naming conventions (329c196d).

This is not a stand-alone test.

URL navigation of ERP5JS has been fixed and test updated.

Do not merge in Master

This runner is used by scalability test, it communicates
with ERP5 Master and launch test suite (using performance_tester).

ZODB Components: Revert 'Allow to execute runUnitTest for bt5 Test Components' (a771dca4) to fix tests bootstrap.

The new syntax to load ZODB Tests Components is:
runUnitTest BT_TITLE:TEST_NAME

That commit was too adhoc as it was relying upon filesystem to load Tests
Components and was not behaving like any other Components (versions was not
available and other Components were not importable).

At the end, it would have meant that a Test Component ran through runUnitTest
and Live Tests (in ERP5 itself) would have behaved differently, thus instead:

1/ Install BT_TITLE dependencies and its test dependencies (new bt property to
   specify bt to be installed only for tests on a fresh instance).
2/ The site is loaded.
3/ Load the test by importing it like any other Components.