[TIP] Coverage.py 4.1b2: re-written branch measurement
Ned Batchelder
ned at nedbatchelder.com
Thu Jan 28 05:00:47 PST 2016
On 1/25/16 6:16 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
Double-oops: this isn't useful, it only shows the difference in what
branches were *measured*. It won't show you the difference in the
branches analyzed, and therefore new missing branches.
The XML report will be the best way to see the differences. You can
remove some of the noise with: sed 's/-rate="[0-9.]*"//g'
--Ned.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idyll.org/pipermail/testing-in-python/attachments/20160128/eff982ea/attachment.html>
More information about the testing-in-python
mailing list