<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
On 1/25/16 6:16 AM, Ned Batchelder wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:56A603FE.4020105@nedbatchelder.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 1/25/16 6:11 AM, Ned Batchelder
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:56A602E8.7020003@nedbatchelder.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
On 1/24/16 9:49 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:20160124214903.551f1e07@anarchist.wooz.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Jan 23, 2016, at 08:08 PM, Ned Batchelder wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Try it, let me know what you think: <a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://pypi.python.org/pypi/coverage/4.1b2">https://pypi.python.org/pypi/coverage/4.1b2</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">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?</pre>
</blockquote>
It might be a bit rough, but you can get a pretty dump of the
raw collected data:<br>
<br>
$ python -m coverage.data .the_coverage_data_file<br>
</blockquote>
Oops: add -c to sort everything:<br>
<br>
$ python -m coverage.data -c .the_coverage_data_file<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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'<br>
<br>
--Ned.<br>
</body>
</html>