Re: [Rest2web-develop] Last Commit

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

Hello Nicola,

-----Original Message-----
   >From: "Nicola Larosa"<ni...@te...>
   >Sent: 07/08/05 22:29:33
   >To: "res...@li..."<res...@li...>
   >Subject: Re: [Rest2web-develop] Last Commit
     >>> The first one: there is no default value. There should be a way to check
   >>> a param's value, when it is set in the config file, or else to fill in a
   >>> default value when it is not. As it is, one may leave the configspec
   >>> empty, meaning that the value may not be present: alas, by doing so one
   >>> loses any check on the value, and there's no default value anyway.
   >
   >> Easy - allow all the functions to take a keyword argument 'default'.
   >> Amend ConfigObj so that instead of automatically failing missing values
   >> it calls the tests with a 'missing=True' keyword.
   >>
   >> The test function can then decide if being missing is an automatic fail.
   >> If a default is available - then it's not.
   >
   >It sounds easy enough, I'll try it.
   >

Cool - you can implement the whole thing.
In ConfigObj.validate it currently *automatically* fails missing keys. Parsing the configspec will automatically create missing sections already (but they'llmbe empty).

Instead it should now merely pass a ``missing=True`` keyword to validate.check and ``None`` as the value. 

In Validator.check - if missing = True and no default keyword is supplied in the configspec - then an Exception should be raised (check fails).

Otherwise the default should be passed to the check function instead.

Create a  new section attribute ``_defaults``.  If a test passes where a value was missing (so the default was used) ConfigObj.validate should add the key to ``_defaults``. Section.__setitem__ should remove a key from ``_defaults`` if the key is altered other than by the validate method.

``write`` should then not write out keys in the ``_defaults`` list. Easy hey :-)

You still end up writing section markers for empty sections though.

[snip..]
    >>>> Hmmm... Well I want to get validate working as a Section attribute
   >>>> rather than an attribute just on ConfigObj...
   >
   >> In the version you now have, the configspec is a Section attribute - a
   >> dictionary of tests for that section.
   >
   >So I can already reuse the same configspec to instantiate a Section, and
   >attach it to a ConfigObj? Cool.
   >

Hmm.. Not quite I don't think. You can do :

c = ConfigObj(filename)
#
# suppose configspec is a dictionary of checks
c['section'] = {}
c['section'].configspec = configspec
c['section2'] = {}
c['section2'].configspec = configspec

Which is nearly what you said ?

Best Regards, 


Fuzzyman 
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python 
   >-------------------------------------------------------
   >SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
   >September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
   >Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
   >Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
   >_______________________________________________
   >Rest2web-develop mailing list
   >Res...@li...
   >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rest2web-develop
   >
   >
   >