[Python-Dev] Code coverage reporting.
titus at caltech.edu
Mon Jun 19 17:18:09 CEST 2006
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 08:37:30AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
-> Brett Cannon wrote:
-> >But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high
-> >but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency
-> >injection would be required to get the tests to work since they were
-> >based on platform-specific things.
-> >I don't know if we need it hooked into the buildbots (unless it is dirt
-> >cheap to generate the report).
-> It would be interesting to combine the coverage over several platforms
-> and report that.
Yes, I noticed that the platform specific stuff doesn't get covered, of
course. It's very easy to do, *if* there's any way to get the coverage
database from a central location (or send it back to a central location).
It might be interesting to run coverage analysis -- either figleaf or
Ned Batchelder's module -- once a week on select buildbot machines
(one linux, one windows, one mac, or some such) and make the coverage
databases available via something like a downloadable static file. Then
anyone could download those files and do Interesting Things with them.
 I'm sorry, I don't know how Walter Dorwald generates his coverage;
if it's OSS, then it'd be better to use because it shows C code coverage
p.s. Here's the diff for regr_test:
--- Lib/test/regrtest.py (revision 46972)
+++ Lib/test/regrtest.py (working copy)
@@ -1,4 +1,5 @@
#! /usr/bin/env python
@@ -333,7 +334,11 @@
tracer.runctx('runtest(test, generate, verbose, quiet, testdir)',
ok = runtest(test, generate, verbose, quiet, testdir, huntrleaks)
if ok > 0:
elif ok == 0:
More information about the Python-Dev