Hi There,
Which is the best tool to run the code coverage for python integration
tests? I tried running with Code Coverage but no data is getting collected
when I run my test using pytest command.
Thanks,
sm
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@pyt
Adding this feature would be a giant quality of life improvement for me and
I really hope it succeeds. So I have been trying to keep up on the debate
in this and related thread.
While I do want this feature, I agree with a lot of the issues people are
raising.
First I agree that _ should not be
Good question. I've asked it in https://github.com/pypa/pip/issues/6536
because I want to check with other pip maintainers.
On a separate note: the error messaging improvements in 20.2 available
with the new beta resolver (such as pointing to this conflict resolution
guide
https://pip.pypa.io
On 08/07/2020 16:02, Guido van Rossum wrote:
Today I’m happy (and a little trepidatious) to announce the next
version of PEP 622, Pattern Matching.
After all the discussion on the issue, I can still not stop thinking
that there needs to be a visual distinction between "capture" and
"match" va
Do you think we should be updating the version of pip bundled with
Python 3.9 at this stage (for the first RC)?
Similarly, is there a need to update Python 3.8 for its next release?
Thanks,
Steve
On 30Jul2020 2119, Sumana Harihareswara wrote:
A new pip is out. Please see below, upgrade, and le
A new pip is out. Please see below, upgrade, and let us know if you/your
users start to have trouble. In particular, we need your feedback on the
beta of the new dependency resolver, because we want to make it the
default in the October release.
best,
Sumana Harihareswara, pip project manager
Hi Rob, thank you! :)
I think I understand the point, but I still don't agree with it. I find it hard
to come up with a concrete use case where you would like to name a parameter
without specifying it. Suppose we want
case Status(user, n_messages, replies, unicode:=_)
Then it might be a little us
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 4:34 PM Nick Coghlan wrote:
> I'm still only intermittently keeping up on python-dev, but my main
> concern with the first iteration remains in this version, which is that it
> doesn't even *mention* that the proposed name binding syntax inherently
> conflicts with the exi
I'm very new to this mailing list so I'm not sure it's my place to email, but
I'd like to weigh in and maybe it will be useful. If not you can always ignore
;)
I think adding the Walrus operator is trying to solve a problem that doesn't
exist. Compare the example from the PEP:
def make_point_3d
