On Feb 24, 5:26 pm, "Edward K. Ream" <[email protected]> wrote: > The problem was compounded by the fact that the unit tests for @file > never failed. Looking at them just now, I see that they silently > became irrelevant sometime during the course of 4.7 development. > Indeed, the unit tests generate file-like sentinels, and then verify > that Leo writes those sentinels as expected. But the new @file == > @thin code forces thin-like sentinels. Presto, the old unit tests > began to test the wrong thing.
If I understand it right, this might be exactly the case where coverage.py can help. If there aren't tests for the new @file == @thin code, this means that this new code will never be executed when the test suite is being run. And coverage.py will complain. As I wrote in another topic, coverage.py does an excellent job when being run in tandem with nose (see http://somethingaboutorange.com/mrl/projects/nose/0.11.1/plugins/cover.html). Leo has a specific testing framework, so hooking coverage.py to this testing framework can become a non-trivial task. Unless you will succeed in teaching nose to execute the test suite of leo. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor?hl=en.
