Commit 58ae1f42 authored by Tim Peters's avatar Tim Peters

Merge rev 30334 from 3.4 branch.

undoInfo() and undoLog() almost always returned wrong # of results.

Repaired, + new tests.
parent 4da39692
...@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ What follows is combined news from the "internal releases" (to support ...@@ -11,6 +11,7 @@ What follows is combined news from the "internal releases" (to support
ongoing Zope 2.8 and Zope3 development) since the last public ZODB 3.4 ongoing Zope 2.8 and Zope3 development) since the last public ZODB 3.4
release. These are the dates of the internal releases: release. These are the dates of the internal releases:
- 3.4a9 DD-MMM-2005
- 3.4a8 09-May-2005 - 3.4a8 09-May-2005
- 3.4a7 06-May-2005 - 3.4a7 06-May-2005
- 3.4a6 05-May-2005 - 3.4a6 05-May-2005
...@@ -126,6 +127,18 @@ Tools ...@@ -126,6 +127,18 @@ Tools
This actually went in several months go, but wasn't noted here at the time. This actually went in several months go, but wasn't noted here at the time.
Thanks to Dmitry Vasiliev for contributing code and tests. Thanks to Dmitry Vasiliev for contributing code and tests.
FileStorage
-----------
- (3.4a9) The ``undoLog()`` and ``undoInfo()`` methods almost always returned
a wrong number of results, one too many if ``last < 0`` (the default is
such a case), or one too few if ``last >= 0``. These have been repaired,
new tests were added, and these methods are now documented in
``ZODB.interfaces.IStorageUndoable``.
- (3.4a2) A ``pdb.set_trace()`` call was mistakenly left in method
``FileStorage.modifiedInVersion()``.
DemoStorage DemoStorage
----------- -----------
...@@ -154,12 +167,6 @@ Tests ...@@ -154,12 +167,6 @@ Tests
- (3.4a2) The test ``checkOldStyleRoot`` failed in Zope3, because of an - (3.4a2) The test ``checkOldStyleRoot`` failed in Zope3, because of an
obscure dependence on the ``Persistence`` package (which Zope3 doesn't use). obscure dependence on the ``Persistence`` package (which Zope3 doesn't use).
FileStorage
-----------
- (3.4a2) A ``pdb.set_trace()`` call was mistakenly left in method
``FileStorage.modifiedInVersion()``.
ZApplication ZApplication
------------ ------------
......
...@@ -1069,7 +1069,12 @@ class FileStorage(BaseStorage.BaseStorage, ...@@ -1069,7 +1069,12 @@ class FileStorage(BaseStorage.BaseStorage,
def undoLog(self, first=0, last=-20, filter=None): def undoLog(self, first=0, last=-20, filter=None):
if last < 0: if last < 0:
last = first - last + 1 # -last is supposed to be the max # of transactions. Convert to
# a positive index. Should have x - first + 1 = -last, which
# means x = first - last - 1. This is spelled out here because
# the normalization code was incorrect for years (used +1
# instead -- off by 2), until ZODB 3.4.
last = first - last - 1
self._lock_acquire() self._lock_acquire()
try: try:
if self._pack_is_in_progress: if self._pack_is_in_progress:
...@@ -2036,14 +2041,18 @@ class UndoSearch: ...@@ -2036,14 +2041,18 @@ class UndoSearch:
self.first = first self.first = first
self.last = last self.last = last
self.filter = filter self.filter = filter
# self.i is the index of the transaction we're _going_ to find
# next. When it reaches self.first, we should start appending
# to self.results. When it reaches self.last + 1, we're done
# (although we may finish earlier).
self.i = 0 self.i = 0
self.results = [] self.results = []
self.stop = 0 self.stop = False
def finished(self): def finished(self):
"""Return True if UndoSearch has found enough records.""" """Return True if UndoSearch has found enough records."""
# BAW: Why 39 please? This makes no sense (see also below). # BAW: Why 39 please? This makes no sense (see also below).
return self.i >= self.last or self.pos < 39 or self.stop return self.i > self.last or self.pos < 39 or self.stop
def search(self): def search(self):
"""Search for another record.""" """Search for another record."""
......
...@@ -724,3 +724,59 @@ class TransactionalUndoStorage: ...@@ -724,3 +724,59 @@ class TransactionalUndoStorage:
self.assertEqual(d['description'],'t1') self.assertEqual(d['description'],'t1')
self.assertEqual(d['k2'],'this is transaction metadata') self.assertEqual(d['k2'],'this is transaction metadata')
self.assertEqual(d['user_name'],'p3 u3') self.assertEqual(d['user_name'],'p3 u3')
# A common test body for index tests on undoInfo and undoLog. Before
# ZODB 3.4, they always returned a wrong number of results (one too
# few _or_ too many, depending on how they were called).
def _exercise_info_indices(self, method_name):
db = DB(self._storage)
info_func = getattr(db, method_name)
cn = db.open()
rt = cn.root()
# Do some transactions.
for key in "abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz":
rt[key] = ord(key)
transaction.commit()
# 26 letters = 26 transactions, + the hidden transaction to make
# the root object, == 27 expected.
allofem = info_func(0, 100000)
self.assertEqual(len(allofem), 27)
# Asking for no more than 100000 should do the same.
redundant = info_func(last=-1000000)
self.assertEqual(allofem, redundant)
# By default, we should get only 20 back.
default = info_func()
self.assertEqual(len(default), 20)
# And they should be the most recent 20.
self.assertEqual(default, allofem[:20])
# If we ask for only one, we should get only the most recent.
fresh = info_func(last=0)
self.assertEqual(len(fresh), 1)
self.assertEqual(fresh[0], allofem[0])
# Another way of asking for only the most recent.
redundant = info_func(last=-1)
self.assertEqual(fresh, redundant)
# Try a slice that doesn't start at 0.
oddball = info_func(first=11, last=17)
self.assertEqual(len(oddball), 17-11+1)
self.assertEqual(oddball, allofem[11 : 11+len(oddball)])
# And another way to spell the same thing.
redundant = info_func(first=11, last=-7)
self.assertEqual(oddball, redundant)
cn.close()
db.close()
def checkIndicesInUndoInfo(self):
self._exercise_info_indices("undoInfo")
def checkIndicesInUndoLog(self):
self._exercise_info_indices("undoLog")
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment