On 5 January 2016 at 11:08, Donald Stufft <don...@stufft.io> wrote: > > On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> We should try to get test coverage wired up as well per CI. I don't know if >> coveralls.io or some other provider is best, but we should see what is >> available and find out if we can use them to either get basic coverage or >> thorough coverage (read https://hg.python.org/devinabox/file/tip/README#l124 >> to see what thorough coverage entails, but it does require a checkout of >> coverage.py). > > I prefer codecov, but it shouldn’t be too hard to do. I tried to get Python > + C coverage checking in the demo with that, but I failed at making the C > coverage work.
Another posslble tool worth considering is diff_cover: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/diff_cover/ That uses git diff to find the lines affected by a patch and specifically looks up *those lines* in a coverage report, so it can ensure that any lines changed by a patch are covered by the regression test suite. It appears to be a neat way of guiding a code base towards more comprehensive test coverage. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ core-workflow mailing list core-workflow@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/core-workflow This list is governed by the PSF Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct
