Ned Batchelder
Ned Batchelder
@blueyed Thanks for persisting with this. I've never valued the annotation feature. Do you use it?
@jcpunk are you still seeing this? Sorry I've let it sit so long.
@jcpunk Can you provide specific instructions for running the tests locally to show the problem? The GitHub Action steps are a bit involved.
This is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure you'd be happy with the result. The flip side of only counting lines in contexts is that you could never get...
I see what you are getting at. It feels like there will be unforeseen consequences of excluding those lines, but we need to get some other eyes on it to...
Hi, sorry I let this sit so long. I see the warning you mean, but I also see that after `coverage combine`, the data is all present. I'm not sure...
Have you made any progress on narrowing this down, or reproducing it? I can't imagine how these things could interact badly, but I've seen stranger things :)
Hi Matt, sorry I've let this sit so long. I'm not understand the problem you are trying to solve. Maybe I'm not well-versed enough in what diff-cover would show in...
I see now. Coverage.py actually has this information already. If you run your program with --branch, and then turn on some debugging: ``` COVERAGE_AST_DUMP=1 coverage report -m ``` you will...
Thanks. Can you link us to the specific code you were measuring, and how you ran the tests/coverage?