RetroSearch Browse

Sun Apr 17 14:53:25 CEST 2011 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110812.html

On Sun, 17 Apr 2011 01:32:15 -0400
"R. David Murray" <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote:
> 
> I personally have no problem with the 100% coverage being made a
> recommendation in the PEP rather than a requirement.  It sounds like
> that might be acceptable to Antoine.  Actually, I would also be fine with
> saying "comprehensive" instead, with a note that 100% branch coverage is
> a good way to head toward that goal, since a comprehensive test suite
> should contain more tests than the minimum set needed to get to 100%
> branch coverage.

If that's a recommendation then it's ok, although I would still prefer
we don't advocate such metrics. It's too easy for some people to get
obsessed about numeric measurements of "quality", leading them to
dubious workarounds and tricks (e.g. when using style-checking tools à
la pylint).

Regards

Antoine.

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2011-April/110812.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP 399: Pure Python/C Accelerator Module Compatibiilty Requirements