On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 01:32:15 -0400 "R. David Murray" <rdmur...@bitdance.com> wrote: > > I personally have no problem with the 100% coverage being made a > recommendation in the PEP rather than a requirement. It sounds like > that might be acceptable to Antoine. Actually, I would also be fine with > saying "comprehensive" instead, with a note that 100% branch coverage is > a good way to head toward that goal, since a comprehensive test suite > should contain more tests than the minimum set needed to get to 100% > branch coverage.
If that's a recommendation then it's ok, although I would still prefer we don't advocate such metrics. It's too easy for some people to get obsessed about numeric measurements of "quality", leading them to dubious workarounds and tricks (e.g. when using style-checking tools à la pylint). Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
