[TIP] Inclusive Coverage Report Question

Drew Michel afdrew11 at gmail.com
Mon Jul 7 06:24:14 PDT 2014


Perfect that's exactly what I was missing. Thank you!


On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com>
wrote:

>  On 7/2/14 6:10 PM, Drew Michel wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>  I'm just starting to write unit tests for my project and I'm very
> excited.
>
>  When I use vanilla nose with --cover-inclusive I'm able to see the parts
> of my code I haven't written unit tests for, i.e.
> http://pastebin.com/KSqje8qN
>
>  When I use coverage + tox, I'm unable to find a combination that works
> together. Is there anyway to get this behavior?
>
>  Here is my config http://pastebin.com/9zVahiJE
>
>
> Looks like you are already using coverage to run the tests, which is
> good.  In this case, you don't need to use the nose --with-coverage flags
> at all.  You want the coverage.py --source flag, which tells coverage where
> the root of your source tree is, and lets it find files that are completely
> uncovered.
>
> --Ned.
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>
>  Drew
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> testing-in-python mailing listtesting-in-python at lists.idyll.orghttp://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> testing-in-python mailing list
> testing-in-python at lists.idyll.org
> http://lists.idyll.org/listinfo/testing-in-python
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20140707/dbf6f694/attachment.html>


More information about the testing-in-python mailing list