[core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

[Nick Coghlan]

On 5 January 2016 at 11:08, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>
> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at 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.

Cheers,
Nick.

-- 
Nick Coghlan   |   ncoghlan at gmail.com   |   Brisbane, Australia