Hello all, I think it would be lovely if trial caught up to the last decade of advances in coverage measurement technology. I *think* this means integrating with coverage.py <https://pypi.org/project/coverage> - probably the hands-down leader in Python coverage technology for at least the last 10 years, if not more - instead of the stdlib "trace" module which is ... something else. Or maybe there's an even better option out there somewhere - it would be amazing if all of the trial-based test suites out there got *whatever* the best current option is - why should ever project have to figure this out for itself?
When was the last time anyone ran trial --coverage on purpose? Did they realize they were choosing the bad option? I know that you can hack around this situation roughly like this: python -m coverage run -m twisted.trial ... but this has some shortcomings. 1. If trial --coverage exists shouldn't it be the *good* option? 2. python -m coverage run -m twisted.trial -jN ... is a bad time. How about some coverage measurement that's multi-core friendly? It's a *real* drag going from a 30 second no-coverage test run using 16 cores to a 15 minute coverage-measuring run on a single core. Does anyone agree that this is something short of an ideal situation? Is anyone interested in helping address it? Jean-Paul
_______________________________________________ Twisted mailing list -- twisted@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to twisted-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/twisted.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/twisted@python.org/message/RZPYPIJ5UK4CZWGO6O4WLNPMWG76O7GF/ Code of Conduct: https://twisted.org/conduct
