Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Is it enough to include everything in the Lib folder, excluding
__pycache__, site-packages and the test folder in Lib? Would that be
representative enough?
Patrik Iselind
Den 2016-12-25 kl. 17:31, skrev Brett Cannon:
> Brett Cannon added the comm
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
OK, for now. Let's disregard my idea that stderr is swallowed. At some
point these test might have worked under coverage.
I was more thinking to bisect cpython. Perhaps i can find a revision that
works.
Patrik
Den 24 dec 2016 20:26 skrev "Ned
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
@nedbat, do you know of a revision where coverage doesn't influence the tests?
If so, which one? Perhaps i can perform a bisect search to find when this went
bad.
I'm testing the latest tip/head. So that's one par
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Sure, here you go.
$ ./python ../coveragepy debug sys
-- sys ---
version: 4.3a0
coverage: ../coveragepy/coverage/__init__.py
cover_dirs: /home/irina/patrik/coveragepy
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
My GitHub PR got closed. So closing this issue as well.
--
resolution: -> rejected
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/i
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
What about the performance penalty for zipping stdlib? is it significant?
When would you like to zip stdlib? For embedded systems with limited disk
space?
Patrik Iselind
On Sat, Dec 24, 2016 at 6:34 PM, Patrik Iselind
wrote:
>
> Patrik Iselind add
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
How much smaller would the stdlib for 3.5 become if you compress it with zip?
--
nosy: +patriki
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue1116
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
I'd like to clarify that the file i just attached, no-stderr.diff, is in no way
a suggestion for a fix. It's just my way of conveying what i see.
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.o
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
For clarity, this is what i get in the test_exceptions test when i've applied
the attached diff.
$ ./python -m test -v test_exceptions
== CPython 3.7.0a0 (default:8e311f109b22, Dec 24 2016, 12:26:43) [GCC 5.4.0
20160609]
== Linux-4.4.0-53-generic-x
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
yes, I'm sure. i printed markings around where the text should have been.
Patrik
Den 24 dec 2016 17:37 skrev "Ned Batchelder" :
>
> Ned Batchelder added the comment:
>
> Are you sure the code that tried to print to stderr was ev
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
report doesn't contain any text when run under coverage. something made the
text not appear...
Patrik
Den 24 dec 2016 16:39 skrev "Patrik Iselind" :
>
> Patrik Iselind added the comment:
>
> i use the latest code. perhaps somethi
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
i use the latest code. perhaps something for introduced after 3.6?
Patrik
Den 24 dec 2016 13:51 skrev "Ned Batchelder" :
>
> Ned Batchelder added the comment:
>
> I doubt very very much that coverage.py is stealing stderr. Many many
&g
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
I've been looking into test_exceptions, why it fails. The reason seems to be
that when the tests are executed under coverage, then they get nothing on the
line that says the following in test_unraisable().
```python
report = stderr.getvalue()
```
So cov
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
As an example, the difference for test_exceptions:
$ ./python ../coveragepy run --pylib --source=exceptions Lib/test/regrtest.py
test_exceptions
Run tests sequentially
0:00:00 [1/1] test_exceptions
Exception ignored in: .BrokenDel.__del__ of
.BrokenDel object
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Cannot figure out how to add the link to the GitHub PR field. Adding link here
instead.
https://github.com/python/devguide/pull/88
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue29
Changes by Patrik Iselind :
--
pull_requests: -7
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue29047>
___
___
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Made a pull request for this
--
pull_requests: +7
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue29047>
___
___
Python-bug
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Great, thanks!
Patrik
Den 22 dec 2016 15:01 skrev "Eric V. Smith" :
>
> Eric V. Smith added the comment:
>
> https://github.com/python/devguide/blob/github/runtests.rst
>
> --
> nosy: +eric.smith
>
> ___
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
The fixes for test_ssl and test_subprocess seem strange to me. All they do is
sweep the messages under the rug. Then there is not really any point with the
'with' block, is there?
Without coverage those tests passed so i cannot really see how th
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Are the tests that altered the execution environment something to bother with
at all? Perhaps something for another issue?
--
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue29
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Is this something we could clarify in the docs?
I'd like to try and dip my toes in this.
Where can i find the source for
https://docs.python.org/devguide/runtests.html
?
--
___
Python tracker
Patrik Iselind added the comment:
Agree
--
resolution: -> not a bug
status: open -> closed
___
Python tracker
<http://bugs.python.org/issue29046>
___
___
New submission from Patrik Iselind:
I checkout the latest tip from scratch.
When i run the tests i get the following results:
% ./python -m test -j
[...]
376 tests OK.
1 test altered the execution environment:
test_site
27 tests skipped:
test_bz2 test_ctypes test_curses test_dbm_gnu
New submission from Patrik Iselind:
Is it possible to do coverage -j8 or similar? Cannot find any documentation on
this. Coverage takes so long on the tests...
I checked https://docs.python.org/devguide/coverage.html
--
assignee: docs@python
components: Documentation
messages: 283824
New submission from Patrik Iselind:
I cannot find any documentation on where the test results are stored.
Looked at https://docs.python.org/devguide/runtests.html
--
assignee: docs@python
components: Documentation
messages: 283825
nosy: docs@python, patriki
priority: normal
severity
25 matches
Mail list logo
