On 17 April 2011 06:32, R. David Murray <rdmurray at bitdance.com> wrote: > I don't think the PEP is asking this either (or if it is I agree it > shouldn't be). The way to get full branch coverage (and yes Exarkun is > right, this is about individual branches; see coverage.py --branch) One thing I'm definitely uncomfortable about is expressing the requirement in a way that depends on a non-stdlib module (coverage.py). Should coverage.py be added to the stdlib if we're going to take test coverage as a measure? Hmm, maybe it goes without saying, but does coverage.py work on Jython, IronPython, etc? (A quick google search actually indicates that there might be some issues still to be resolved...) Paul.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4