[Python-Dev] Code coverage tool updated

[Tim Peters]

[Walter Dörwald]
> I guess it's not worth it to try to fix doctest/trace to
> provide sourcecode for doctest code, but IMHO trace should
> be able to survive a doctest.

Sure!  The assert also triggers for "@test" on my box, BTW -- and also
did in 2.3.4.

> Removing the assert statement, so that trace.py runs to
> completion shows a different problem: There are only
> 32 files covered according to the trace output. The
> complete test log can be found here:
>    http://styx.livinglogic.de/~walter/brokentrace.txt
>
> The trace call looked like this:
> ./python ../../../trace.py --count --summary --missing Lib/test/regrtest.py
> with ../../../trace.py being the trace.py from current
> CVS with the assert statement removed.
>
> So am I doing something wrong or is trace.py broken?

Sorry, I don't know.  trace.py is like voting to me -- I'm highly in
favor of it, but never have time for it <0.5 wink>.  I only dropped in
here to explain the source of the synthesized doctest "file name".

FWIW, doing what you did with current CVS Python on Windows, I get
results similar to yours:  only 30-some modules reported at the end.

Under my 2.3.4 installation instead, the same thing reports on over
300 modules, so best guess is that trace.py is indeed suffering
breakage introduced in 2.4.  No idea about specifics, though.