I concur with the observations that there is minimal risk of problems due to the planned excursion, so long as mail is collected by a trusted person during the absence and, accordingly, responded to as needed.
But it is important to point out that the following post is blatantly untrue and misleading.
MUFC said:
There have never been direct evidences that traveling for long time during the pending of the application will create any problems.
This is a blatantly untrue statement. Which is all too typical of the source.
It was, after all, a Federal Court justice who used the phrase
applicant-applying-on-the-way-to-the-airport, in an officially published decision, to describe a case in which CIC targeted the applicant and challenged the applicant's credibility, largely because the applicant had been residing outside Canada while the application was pending.
Before OB 407 (April 2012), that is before CIC made its screening criteria secret (CIC calls it
confidential), one of the specific
risk indicators listed as a
reason-to-question-residency was the presence of a passport stamp indicating the applicant had been abroad and returned just in time to attend the test. This was
formal CIC policy from 2005 until last year (when the Operational Manual for Citizenship Processing regarding Residence (CP - 5) was replaced by the Program Delivery Instructions, which given CIC's policy of keeping its screening criteria confidential do not disclose what CIC examines or considers when deciding to issue RQ or conduct residency investigations).
There are numerous published decisions by the Federal Court involving cases where it is patently clear that a key factor having a significant influence, on how the application was handled, was extended absence during the time the application was pending.
There are scores and scores of reputable reports in multiple forums like this one about applicants issued RQ after the test when CIC had identified the individual as having been abroad extensively while the application was pending.
But the most obvious illustration of how extended absences may influence CIC's approach to an applicant is manifested in Section 5(1)(c.1) as added to the
Citizenship Act by the
SCCA. The key motivation for including this provision, by this government, was to target applicants who leave Canada for extended periods of time while the application is pending. Several years ago a couple Federal Court decisions ruled that absences after applying could not factor into the calculation of residency itself, which meant that even though CIC could still (and clearly has) issue RQ and otherwise more strictly and thoroughly and skeptically scrutinize applicants whose ties abroad (including especially those who were spending extended periods of time abroad while the application was pending), it was more difficult for CIC to directly challenge such applicants.
This was long a pet peeve among Tories and, again, was perhaps the single biggest factor leading to the inclusion of Section 5(1)(c.1).
The particulars in how specific applicants have been targeted and treated due to extended absences while the application is pending is detailed in numerous other topics, with a lot of detailed analysis derived from officially published Federal Court decisions in at least two related topics at immigration.ca.
To be clear, relative to new applications going forward (any made after June 10), there is no doubt: absences after applying are now directly relevant, and absences for a duration which CIC might infer as amounting to residing abroad (and remember, when asking about places where an individual resides, CIC's time frame is for calendar
months) could suffice as grounds to deny the application. (If CIC concludes the applicant is residing abroad while the application is pending, that negates having an intent to
continue to reside in Canada, since of course it is physically impossible to actually continue to reside anywhere other than where one is actually residing, and a person will be presumed to not intend to do that which it is impossible to do. This, after all, is the main purpose of Section 5(1)(c.1)!)
Mostly I'll try to keep travel under 6-7 weeks. 
