Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

annotate: annotate missing branches with "~" #676

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

blueyed
Copy link
Contributor

@blueyed blueyed commented Jun 30, 2018

No description provided.

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner

nedbat commented Jun 30, 2018

@blueyed Thanks for persisting with this. I've never valued the annotation feature. Do you use it?

@nedbat nedbat changed the title annotate: annotate missing branches with "‼" annotate: annotate missing branches with "~" Jun 30, 2018
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@
# Licensed under the Apache License: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
# For details: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/src/default/NOTICE.txt
Copy link
Owner

@nedbat nedbat Jun 30, 2018

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

You'll need to correct the NOTICE links to GitHub to get the tests to pass.

@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ def annotate_file(self, fr, analysis):
statements = sorted(analysis.statements)
missing = sorted(analysis.missing)
excluded = sorted(analysis.excluded)
missing_branches = sorted(analysis.missing_branch_arcs().keys())
Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's no reason to sort this, since we're just using in on it. Making it a set would be better. Same for excluded, though that was my fault! :) statements and missing need to be sorted because of how the algorithm walks them in tandem.

@blueyed
Copy link
Contributor Author

blueyed commented Jun 30, 2018

Do you use it?

Yes, but mostly for debugging/developing.

I've just created #677 - where this is included already (without the tests).

@ProsperousHeart
Copy link
Contributor

Do you use it?

Yes, but mostly for debugging/developing.

I've just created #677 - where this is included already (without the tests).

@nedbat I think this can be closed?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants