JuliaLang
Explicitly test these constant methods for special functions that cov…
…erage doesn't pick up
See https://app.codecov.io/gh/JuliaLang/julia/blob/master/base%2Fspecial%2Ftrig.jl for examples
I'm not really sure how much value these tests have. They kind of seem like they will just make it annoying to change the implementation in the future for no real reason.
It’s mostly for the purposes of making the coverage report less annoying to me
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 1:49 PM Oscar Smith @.***> wrote:
I'm not really sure how much value these tests have. They kind of seem like they will just make it annoying to change the implementation in the future for no real reason.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/54293#issuecomment-2081573717, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGKJY5DLJPXEIIKPH73AILY7UZBFAVCNFSM6AAAAABG5E2MYWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOBRGU3TGNZRG4 . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>
I don't think this PR will actually help the coverage results. See the linked issue.
Fair enough. Happy to close this, then. I wonder if we should mark these functions excluded from coverage and explain why?
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 3:09 AM Neven Sajko @.***> wrote:
I don't think this PR will actually help the coverage results. See the linked issue.
— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/54293#issuecomment-2082025320, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAGKJYYLEDUYR3MXUX7Y3YTY7XWZHAVCNFSM6AAAAABG5E2MYWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOBSGAZDKMZSGA . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: @.***>
Doing some coverage exclusion or similar seems like a better idea than basically duplicating the definitions of these functions into the test files.
