> On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. >
FWIW codecov has that built in. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ 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