Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-28 Thread Brett Cannon
On Fri, 28 Apr 2017 at 02:19 Michael Foord wrote: > > > On 28/04/17 01:49, Terry Reedy wrote: > > On 4/27/2017 3:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 22:36 Terry Reedy >> > wrote: > >> > >> On

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-28 Thread Michael Foord
On 28/04/17 01:49, Terry Reedy wrote: On 4/27/2017 3:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 22:36 Terry Reedy > wrote: On 4/26/2017 1:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > E.g. I don't expect > test_importlib to be directly

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-27 Thread Terry Reedy
On 4/27/2017 3:44 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 22:36 Terry Reedy > wrote: On 4/26/2017 1:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > E.g. I don't expect > test_importlib to be directly responsible for exercising all code in

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-27 Thread Brett Cannon
On Wed, 26 Apr 2017 at 22:36 Terry Reedy wrote: > On 4/26/2017 1:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: > > > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 at 17:00 Terry Reedy > > wrote: > > > While I use code coverage to improve automated unittesting, I am >

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-27 Thread Terry Reedy
On 4/27/2017 1:52 AM, Ethan Furman wrote: On 04/26/2017 10:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: On 4/26/2017 1:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: :) But they are at least executed which is what we're really measuring here and I think all Ethan and I are advocating for. I thought Ethan was advocating for

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-26 Thread Ethan Furman
On 04/26/2017 10:35 PM, Terry Reedy wrote: On 4/26/2017 1:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: :) But they are at least executed which is what we're really measuring here and I think all Ethan and I are advocating for. I thought Ethan was advocating for more -- a specific unittest for each line.

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-26 Thread Terry Reedy
On 4/26/2017 1:45 PM, Brett Cannon wrote: On Tue, 25 Apr 2017 at 17:00 Terry Reedy > wrote: While I use code coverage to improve automated unittesting, I am opposed to turning a usable but limited and sometime faulty tool into a blind

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-26 Thread Victor Stinner
`self.initfp()` is very unlikely raise exceptions. But MemoryError, KeyboardInterrupt or other rare exceptions may be happen. unittest.mock helps a lot to test such corner case: mock initfp() with a MemoryError side effect, maybe also close () to check that the method was called... The new

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-25 Thread INADA Naoki
> While I use code coverage to improve automated unittesting, I am opposed to > turning a usable but limited and sometime faulty tool into a blind robotic > master that blocks improvements. The prospect of this being done has > discouraged me from learning the new system. (More on 'faulty tool'

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-25 Thread Terry Reedy
On 4/25/2017 11:00 AM, Barry Warsaw wrote: On Apr 24, 2017, at 09:32 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: On 04/21/2017 03:29 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: (In the context of having a patch blocked by the blind Codecov robot ...) I dislike code coverage because there is a temptation to write artificial

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-25 Thread Barry Warsaw
On Apr 24, 2017, at 09:32 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: >> I dislike code coverage because there is a temptation to write artficial >> tests whereas the code is tested indirectly or the code is not important >> enough to *require* tests. > >If it's not important enough to require tests it's not

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-24 Thread Ethan Furman
On 04/21/2017 03:29 PM, Victor Stinner wrote: I dislike code coverage because there is a temptation to write artficial tests whereas the code is tested indirectly or the code is not important enough to *require* tests. If it's not important enough to require tests it's not important enough

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-22 Thread Victor Stinner
Thank you, I will take a look and see if I can help. Victor Le 22 avr. 2017 6:43 PM, "Brett Cannon" a écrit : > > > On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 at 15:33 Victor Stinner > wrote: > >> Ah, I found a workaround: Firefox on Android has a "[x] See the computer >>

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-22 Thread Victor Stinner
Oh, I forgot something about Codecov: it took me 2 minutes to understand why a PR gets the red icon whereas all tests pass and the merge button was waiting for my click. In fact, Codecov failed but the test isn't blocking. I would expect the green icon on the overall list of PR. Well, it's not

Re: [python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-22 Thread Brett Cannon
On Fri, 21 Apr 2017 at 15:33 Victor Stinner wrote: > Ah, I found a workaround: Firefox on Android has a "[x] See the computer > version" option which allows the merge!? > > Victor > > Le 22 avr. 2017 12:29 AM, "Victor Stinner" a > écrit : > >>

[python-committers] Codecov and PR

2017-04-21 Thread Victor Stinner
Hi, I tried to merge a pull request on my phone, but I got the error: "Pull requests that have a failing status can’t be merged on a phone." The GitHub PEP announced that it will be possible to merge a change from the beach. Well, it's doable but only if you bring a laptop, not a phone :-) All