[TIP] Coverage.py 4.1b2: re-written branch measurement
Ned Batchelder
ned at nedbatchelder.com
Mon Jan 25 03:16:14 PST 2016
On 1/25/16 6:11 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On 1/24/16 9:49 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2016, at 08:08 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>
>>> Try it, let me know what you think:https://pypi.python.org/pypi/coverage/4.1b2
>> I haven't done a detailed analysis of the output, but it's definitely
>> different. I ran both the stable and pre-release versions over the Mailman 3
>> core's git master head. Here are the totals:
>>
>> Name Stmts Miss Branch BrPart Cover Missing
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> TOTAL (stable) 14386 1127 4377 463 90%
>> TOTAL (pre-release) 12456 954 3350 309 91%
>>
>> So I find it interesting that there are now fewer total number of statements,
>> with correspondingly lower totals on the other values. Except total
>> coverage. Yay! I get to claim a little boost with no extra work. :)
>>
>> Is there an easy way to compare the different results, considering it's
>> reporting on almost 300 files?
> It might be a bit rough, but you can get a pretty dump of the raw
> collected data:
>
> $ python -m coverage.data .the_coverage_data_file
Oops: add -c to sort everything:
$ python -m coverage.data -c .the_coverage_data_file
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20160125/8112964a/attachment.htm>
More information about the testing-in-python
mailing list