Anders Hovmöller
Anders Hovmöller
That looks wrong. You don't mutate the tests, you mutate the source code of your library/app.
Yea that looks more reasonable
Ah yes. This ticket is actually fixed on master. But yes, it's correct that mutmut should run tests once in a while to make sure not mutating still passes all...
That looks very wrong yea.
I used to just append the tests-dir to the command, but that presupposes that this is actually valid for all test runners, which is pretty crazy if you think about...
Well I need to know where the tests are due to how the cache works: for each mutant I store the hash of the tests (as one single hash for...
You could probably get by by just adding your new test and run mutmut normally. Unless you have lots and lots of mutants and a very slow test suite it...
Yes, that would probably be better but I don't want to have to reimplement passing arguments to all possible runners so I'm hesitant to do that. I did look into...
True. The fact that it's on disk has loads of negative effects (like making parallelization pretty much a non-starter) so that's something I'd like to fix at some point. Do...
> you’ll get the mutant on disk You read that as "on screen"? It says quite clearly "on disk"! You also didn't read the warning so why would adding another...