<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>