On Feb 13, 2017, at 09:51 AM, Alex Gaynor wrote: >actively tracking the impact of each PR on coverage has been extremely >useful in every other project I've worked on.
Agreed. >FWIW, on projects I've worked on we have turned off the codecov "comments", >and instead just rely on the status checker. Also agreed. On many projects we do two things, both of which are usually implemented as status checks without the coverage comments. We use coverage to enforce a ratchet so coverage doesn't regress (assuming a stable test suite), and we use diffcov to ensure that any new code being proposed is 100% covered. Another useful tool that doesn't exist yet, though there were some conversations about it at a previous Pycon is a tool that ensures that a test for the new code has been added. It would do this by running the test suite without the (non-test-suite) change and proving that the test failed, then reapply the fix and prove that the test suite passed. It's unfortunately not uncommon for someone to submit a PR with a test that they *think* tests the new code but actually doesn't, and the only way to check that now is locally and manually. https://github.com/paulcollinsiii/hasregression +1 for suppressing the coverage comments. Cheers, -Barry _______________________________________________ python-committers mailing list python-committers@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-committers Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
