-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 7k
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
[Infrastructure] Code coverage #277
Comments
What's the reasoning behind running it only for a specific Python version (e.g. 3.7)? |
a bit simpler, I guess. But combining is possible, so nevermind. |
I think that the basic idea was to able to run all scripts with one command. Coverage came later. So if we can simplify it by removing the coverage part since it's handled elsewhere, fine by me. |
To update on this issue:
So only some simplifications in |
As far as I know almost always coverage is used to see "test coverage".
For unused branches/variables etc there are linters, dead-code finders (such as
vulture
ordead
).So I don't think code coverage is important to extent of running
run_all.sh
script.I would like to
run_all.sh
coverage run -p
and thencoverage combine
)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: