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 merged coverage and html #346

Closed
nedbat opened this issue Dec 19, 2014 · 2 comments
Closed

Annotate merged coverage and html #346

nedbat opened this issue Dec 19, 2014 · 2 comments
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner

nedbat commented Dec 19, 2014

Originally reported by Dima Tisnek (Bitbucket: dimaqq, GitHub: dimaqq)


Wouldn't it be nice, if:

when coverage is merged, covered lines keep some info what tests exercised given line. in a simple case, let's say a set of xxx from .coverage_xxx is carried with each covered line.

when HTML is generated, a covered line in HTML gets a :hover or similar tag + jquery that displays what tests exercised a given line.

Why I'd like this:

Case 1. I'm trying to set up a heterogeneous test environment:

most code is covered by unit tests
some code is covered by integration test vectors
yes some corner cases are covered by negative tests

There's overlap between these different kinds tests and they have varying degree of certainty that just because a line was executed it produced correct result.

Comparing html files side-by-side is an option, but unified view would be cooler.

Thus I'd like to see what tests and how many exercised a given line when drilling down.

Case 2. Debugging

Let's say a large volume of tests produced awesome coverage.

Now I'll go into HTML and get all surprised that some "raise XXX" line was in fact executed. Now let's say, I expected that to be fatal and not ignored. This would allow me to quickly check which test caused that.


@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Dec 19, 2014

This is an interesting idea, thanks. It's closely related to #170.

@nedbat nedbat removed the 4.0 label Aug 17, 2018
@nedbat nedbat removed the major label Jan 18, 2020
@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Oct 31, 2021

I'm not sure why I said this was closely related to #170, it seems to be an exact duplicate of #170, which shipped in 5.0.

@nedbat nedbat closed this as completed Oct 31, 2021
@nedbat nedbat added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request and removed proposal labels Oct 31, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
duplicate This issue or pull request already exists enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant