Ned Batchelder

Issue #557 was marked as a duplicate of this issue.

Thanks, this feature has been requested a few times, but will be very difficult to implement, if possible at all. Here's a blog post from almost six years ago explaining...

*Original comment by* **Marc Schlaich (Bitbucket: [schlamar](https://bitbucket.org/schlamar), GitHub: [schlamar](https://github.com/schlamar))** ---------------------------------------- Just to be clear, this should be something between normal and branch coverage. In the example testing against (True, False)...

@owillebo Can you say more about your situation? Why are you running from a directory below the .coveragerc file? Most people run their tests from the root of their project...

This is an interesting new idea. I guess you could use something like dynamic contexts to do this, even as a post-processing step (run coverage, collect the contexts, then read...

@djlambert I haven't done any work on this, though as it happens, I'm on today's episode of [Django Chat](https://nedbatchelder.com/blog/202110/django_chat_podcast.html) and we discussed this very idea. Can you point me to...

BTW, the PHPunit page has moved to here: https://phpunit.readthedocs.io/en/latest/code-coverage-analysis.html#specifying-covered-code-parts

(sorry for all the separate comments) I am interested to play around with how this could work, and what it would look like to users. IIUC, @mayoroftuesday's POC writes a...

> Possible use case to use it for a method called very frequently by lots of code, but only want specific tests to count for it. That's an interesting point:...

I haven't given this more thought. I would definitely like to see this concept explored as a separate proof-of-concept. Let me know if there's anything I can do to support...