[TIP] are the absolute paths in .coverage necessary?

[Chris Withers]

Hi Ned,

Sorry, I meant: do the paths recorded in the .coverage files need to be 
absolute or could Coverage be changed to just record the path relatively 
to the current working directory at the start of execution?

cheers,

Chris


On 12/10/2016 22:31, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> Chris, as far as I can tell, they do not have to be absolute. As you can
> see from the sample of my rc file, you can replace an arbitrary prefix
> with *, and it will work just fine.  How about this:
>
> [paths]
> mylib =
>    mylib
>    */workspace/PYTHON/*/mylib
> tests =
>    tests
>    */workspace/PYTHON/*/tests
>
> --Ned.
>
>
> On 10/12/16 10:59 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>> What I currently have is:
>>
>> [paths]
>> mylib =
>>    mylib
>>    /data/jenkins/jobs/mylib-test/workspace/PYTHON/*/mylib
>> tests =
>>    tests
>>    /data/jenkins/jobs/mylib-test/workspace/PYTHON/*/tests
>>
>> How can I remove the absolute bits of that?
>>
>> But, back to my original question: why are the paths in .coverage
>> absolute in the first place? :-)
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> On 12/10/2016 15:53, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>> Chris, can you show the absolute paths you are using?  I have this in my
>>> rc file to deal with varieties of CI:
>>>
>>>      [paths]
>>>      source =
>>>          .
>>>          *\coverage\trunk
>>>          */coverage/trunk
>>>          *\coveragepy
>>>
>>> --Ned.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/12/16 10:00 AM, Chris Withers wrote:
>>>> Hi Ned,
>>>>
>>>> Are the absolute paths necessary in .coverage?
>>>>
>>>> The reason I ask is that if, for example, they were relative to the
>>>> cwd, then I wouldn't need a .coveragerc with a whole bunch of paths
>>>> predicated on the exact filesystem layout of my CI server.
>>>>
>>>> thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> Chris