RetroSearch Browse

Mon Jul 29 21:48:33 CEST 2013 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-July/127651.html

On Mon, 29 Jul 2013 21:31:02 +0200
Christian Heimes <christian at python.org> wrote:
> Am 29.07.2013 19:58, schrieb Brett Cannon:
> > I took a quick poke around and it seems some things are legitimately not
> > being executed, while others are error conditions that we wouldn't
> > expect to occur (e.g. memory exhaustion). If we ever decide to get
> > serious about code coverage (both C and Python code) we may need to have
> > a discussion as a group about our feelings related to pragmas dictating
> > when code should be left out of coverage reports.
> 
> Yeah, object allocation and creation checks as well as verification of
> operating system API call are reason for lots branch and line misses.
> I'm not sure what we can do about that. I don't want to plaster the code
> with LCOV_EXCL_LINE comments.

Ideally, we should run coverage runs on different systems (Unices,
Windows...) and merge the results together, so that we know which paths
are really uncovered.

Regards

Antoine.

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

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2013-July/127651.html below:

[Python-Dev] C code coverage report with lcov