Hello all,
I think it would be lovely if trial caught up to the last decade of advances in coverage measurement technology. I
think this means integrating with
coverage.py - probably the hands-down leader in Python coverage technology for at least the last 10 years, if not more - instead of the stdlib "trace" module which is ... something else. Or maybe there's an even better option out there somewhere - it would be amazing if all of the trial-based test suites out there got
whatever the best current option is - why should ever project have to figure this out for itself?
When was the last time anyone ran trial --coverage on purpose? Did they realize they were choosing the bad option?
I know that you can hack around this situation roughly like this:
python -m coverage run -m twisted.trial ...
but this has some shortcomings.
- If trial --coverage exists shouldn't it be the good option?
- python -m coverage run -m twisted.trial -jN ... is a bad time. How about some coverage measurement that's multi-core friendly? It's a real drag going from a 30 second no-coverage test run using 16 cores to a 15 minute coverage-measuring run on a single core.
Does anyone agree that this is something short of an ideal situation? Is anyone interested in helping address it?
Jean-Paul