On Feb 16, 2022, at 11:41 AM, Jean-Paul Calderone <exarkun@twistedmatrix.com> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 5:36 PM Jean-Paul Calderone <exarkun@twistedmatrix.com> wrote: 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. Presumably trial -jN uses us processes, so https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/6.3.1/subprocess.html is worth a read.
Does anyone agree that this is something short of an ideal situation? Is anyone interested in helping address it?
Jean-Paul
Anyone?
_______________________________________________ Twisted mailing list -- twisted@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to twisted-leave@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/twisted.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/twisted@python.org/message/7IHGMNFFEJE... Code of Conduct: https://twisted.org/conduct