Jason Franklin wrote:
> I appreciate you merging this. > > What puzzles me is that test coverage decreased on this commit (according > to the "coverage/coveralls"). > > I'm not exactly sure how coverage is measured, but this continues to > surprise me at times. How can coverage decrease when a test that did not > exist before was added to the test suite? > > This is more of a "how it works" question... it's not really about the > patch itself. The coverage numbers on coveralls fluctuate a lot. Cocecov is a lot better, see https://codecov.io/gh/vim/vim/commits For patch 829 it does mention a small decrease in coverage. Only one "return FAIL" line that was touched isn't covered. Not clear why the percentage changed. -- CUSTOMER: You're not fooling anyone y'know. Look, isn't there something you can do? DEAD PERSON: I feel happy... I feel happy. [whop] CUSTOMER: Ah, thanks very much. MORTICIAN: Not at all. See you on Thursday. CUSTOMER: Right. The Quest for the Holy Grail (Monty Python) /// Bram Moolenaar -- [email protected] -- http://www.Moolenaar.net \\\ /// sponsor Vim, vote for features -- http://www.Vim.org/sponsor/ \\\ \\\ an exciting new programming language -- http://www.Zimbu.org /// \\\ help me help AIDS victims -- http://ICCF-Holland.org /// -- -- You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. Do not top-post! Type your reply below the text you are replying to. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "vim_dev" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
