On 01/05/2019 13:37, Paul Moore wrote: > I agree - removing this just to make the coverage figures look pretty > seems like the wrong motivation. > > Configuring coverage to understand that you want to exclude these > lines from the checking would be fine, as would accepting that a > coverage of slightly less than 100% is OK. Removing functionality that > people use (whether or not they have other ways of getting the same > results) needs a stronger justification, IMO. It's an interesting point; I personally don't see much value in coverage of less than 100%, if you're going to look at coverage: no-one is going to focus on or potentially even notice whether coverage moved from 99% to 99% (no typo), even though a bunch of new uncovered code may have been introduced. If people are actually using these blocks, then so be it, but it feels like the people who want them to stick around are saying they're using them just on the off chance they might use them, which feels like a poor reason to keep a bunch of dead code around. I'm not sure I understand how triggering via unittest or via unittest (again, no typo, both these __main__ blocks and python -m unittest are using the same test runner) could make a difference. Chris
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