code coverage tool

John Roth johnroth at ameritech.net
Tue Mar 4 12:57:40 CET 2003


"Alex Martelli" <aleax at aleax.it> wrote in message
news:HvZ8a.1938$pG1.51847 at news1.tin.it...
> John Roth wrote:
>    ...
> > My experiance with pyCover is that it is about a factor of three
slower
> > than running without it, so I'd expect the same slowdown, or
somewhat
> > more,
> > for a threaded approach. For a coverage analyzer, that's not a
> > significant
> > problem for me. If you're trying to do volume testing, it could be
> > prohibitive.
>
> Haven't tried pyCover, but I _have_ noticed the hotshot "profiler" has
> all the hooks one needs to use it in a simple statement-coverage mode,
> and it seems to have very low overhead when used that way; it's just a
> question of interpreting its log files correctly, and, while not well
> documented, there's even a module in the standard library to help out
> with that task.  Hmmm....

Actually, it doesn't. pyCover uses the debugger, not the profiler.
The profiler only gives you function entry and exit, it doesn't allow
you
to check for things like not taking one path of a branch. This is
rather obviously needed for statement (and branch) coverage tests.

Also notice that neither one does threads automatically, which is
what the OP wanted.

John Roth
>
>
> Alex
>






More information about the Python-list mailing list