Titus Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 08:37:30AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
> -> Brett Cannon wrote:
> -> >But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high
> -> >but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency
> -> >injection would be required to
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 08:12:39PM -0700, Brett Cannon wrote:
-> On 6/15/06, Titus Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-> >
-> >Folks,
-> >
-> >I've just run a code coverage report for the python2.4 branch:
-> >
-> >http://vallista.idyll.org/~t/temp/python2.4-svn/
-> >
-> >This report uses my
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 08:37:30AM -0400, Benji York wrote:
-> Brett Cannon wrote:
-> >But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high
-> >but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency
-> >injection would be required to get the tests to work since th
On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 02:21:04PM +1000, Nick Coghlan wrote:
-> Brett Cannon wrote:
-> >But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high
-> >but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency
-> >injection would be required to get the tests to work since
Brett Cannon wrote:
> Ah, do the union of the coverage! Yeah, that would be nice and give the
> most accurate coverage data in terms of what is actually being tested.
> But as Titus says in another email, question is how to get that data
> sent back to be correlated against.
It might be inter
On 6/19/06, Benji York <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Brett Cannon wrote:> But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high> but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency> injection would be required to get the tests to work since they were
> based on platf
Benji York wrote:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>> But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high
>> but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency
>> injection would be required to get the tests to work since they were
>> based on platform-specific things
Brett Cannon wrote:
> But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high
> but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency
> injection would be required to get the tests to work since they were
> based on platform-specific things.
> I don't know if we n
Brett Cannon wrote:
> But it does seem accurate; random checking of some modules that got high
> but not perfect covereage all seem to be instances where dependency
> injection would be required to get the tests to work since they were
> based on platform-specific things.
There's something odd
On 6/15/06, Titus Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Folks,I've just run a code coverage report for the python2.4 branch:http://vallista.idyll.org/~t/temp/python2.4-svn/This report uses my figleaf code,
http://darcs.idyll.org/~t/projects/figleaf-latest.tar.gzVery nice, Titus!
I'm int
Folks,
I've just run a code coverage report for the python2.4 branch:
http://vallista.idyll.org/~t/temp/python2.4-svn/
This report uses my figleaf code,
http://darcs.idyll.org/~t/projects/figleaf-latest.tar.gz
I'm interested in feedback on a few things --
* what more would yo
11 matches
Mail list logo