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

[Ben Finney]

Ned Batchelder <ned at nedbatchelder.com> writes:

> There's no guarantee that all of the paths make sense as relative to
> the current directory, since they might not be below the current
> directory.

What may not be clear from that, but I think is intailed in what Ned
says:

The *collection* of the coverage information is done at a different time
from other actions, such as collecting more, or reporting coverage.

Also, the coverage data can be stored in a location distant from the
code tree.

So there is no reliable context for *which* working directory was active
when the coverage data was collected; and so, for the data to refer to
the same paths later, those paths must be absolute.

-- 
 \     “Don't be misled by the enormous flow of money into bad defacto |
  `\    standards for unsophisticated buyers using poor adaptations of |
_o__)                                     incomplete ideas.” —Alan Kay |
Ben Finney