coveragepy
coveragepy copied to clipboard
Prevent misbehaving dynamic context plugins from ruining coverage
While working on a dynamic context plugin I encountered an issue where contexts are not unique(I think it's related to subprocess coverage, but I haven't been able to create a small enough example to show here).
While we can argue that the plugin itself should be fixed, this looks like an innocuous change to coveragepy
which can prevent these misbehaving plugins from ruining most of the coverage data(not being covered).
Codecov Report
Merging #1088 (309f67e) into master (7ff93a9) will decrease coverage by
0.01%
. The diff coverage isn/a
.
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #1088 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.28% 91.27% -0.02%
==========================================
Files 90 90
Lines 13358 13358
Branches 1493 1493
==========================================
- Hits 12194 12192 -2
- Misses 953 954 +1
- Partials 211 212 +1
Impacted Files | Coverage Δ | |
---|---|---|
coverage/sqldata.py | 90.77% <ø> (ø) |
|
tests/test_oddball.py | 81.54% <0.00%> (-1.20%) |
:arrow_down: |
Do you have any more information about what caused the conflict? This is the type of change that can hide useful information about a problem to be fixed. I see that it would be safe to add, but I have qualms.
Not really, no. The information I currently know is what's mentioned on the description, sub-processes coverage. What the misbehaving plugin(mine) is doing, can be seen here and here. Does it help understand the problem?
This branch is out of date, and submission is 2+ years ago. Can it be closed?