Re: [Rest2web-develop] Re: We forked validate.py

[Michael F. <mi...@pc...>]

Hello Nicola,

Nicola Larosa wrote:

>>I've got meld - I'll have to merge back in what you've done with the
>>docs. Not today - it's a bit manic :-(
>>    
>>
>
>Bricks flying left and right, eh? ;-)
>
>
>  
>
Something like that - *sigh*. Staff problems, meetings, customer
problems, customers..... I'm actually quite fond of the bricks... it's
the people I struggle with ;-)

>>Obviously for any further work we need to agree specific areas that we
>>should each work on - then we can just discuss how we integrate the
>>different things we do, rather than both working on the same things at
>>the same time !
>>    
>>
>
>So, tell me what you think of my last commits to validate.py, before I go
>on and tackle configreader.py . :-)
>
>
>  
>

Yes - very impressed. I generally like all the changes. The new errors,
the neat way you've improved the Validator object and the list tests,
the docutils tests.

Of course it means I have to rework the docs ! Bah.....

I intend to rename configreader to configobj at some point - and have it
as a standalone module. I wasn't intending to have an ``__init__.py`` in
the final version. We've ended up with the wrong filename because my
first implementation was a reader only.

In writing the documentation I've uncovered about 15 issues (including
two bugfixes) that I *need* to resolve. This is along with implementing
``writein`` and the comments stuff. All that won't take too long, but
can you hold off configreader until then ?

In the meantime if you want to implement any more built in tests for
validate.py, do the timestamp and a regex test for example.....  feel
free :-)

It looks like we need another project to work on together. Maybe you
could look at Firedrop - there's still a lot to do for that. Or we could
pick up rest2web....

>>I do have an implementation question.
>>
>>My current implementation for ConfigObj puts an attribute called
>>'configspec' on the main ConfigObj. This is the parsed configspec with
>>all the tests, the structure follows the expected structure of your
>>config file (obviously).
>>
>>I'm wondering if it would be better to have a configspec attribute for
>>each Section - (as a dictionary). This would allow you to *individually*
>>test values as well.
>>    
>>
>
>Individually as opposed to what? I'm not sure I understand.
>
>  
>
Don't worry - my new way is better. It just means re-implementing some
stuff and rewriting some docs :-)

Bugger.

> [snip..]
>
>
>  
>
>>Anyway - I don't *think* I can blag IRC until I've put a proper effort
>>into poking a hole in our work firewall. (Requires me to construct a
>>website that looks like a building related website - I have registered a
>>domain specially !). *But* - I'm going to try and get Jabber working.
>>    
>>
>
>So it's easier to chat from Romania than from Britain. Bah! ;-) See what
>you can do.
>
>
>  
>
Unfortunately that seems to be true at the moment.


Regards,


Fuzzy
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python