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

Prevent misbehaving dynamic context plugins from ruining coverage #1088

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

Conversation

s0undt3ch
Copy link

While working on a dynamic context plugin I encountered an issue where contexts are not unique(I think it's related to subprocess coverage, but I haven't been able to create a small enough example to show here).

While we can argue that the plugin itself should be fixed, this looks like an innocuous change to coveragepy which can prevent these misbehaving plugins from ruining most of the coverage data(not being covered).

@s0undt3ch s0undt3ch force-pushed the hotfix/context-on-conflict branch from 69510e9 to 309f67e Compare January 4, 2021 07:22
@codecov-io
Copy link

Codecov Report

Merging #1088 (309f67e) into master (7ff93a9) will decrease coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1088      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.28%   91.27%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          90       90              
  Lines       13358    13358              
  Branches     1493     1493              
==========================================
- Hits        12194    12192       -2     
- Misses        953      954       +1     
- Partials      211      212       +1     
Impacted Files Coverage Δ
coverage/sqldata.py 90.77% <ø> (ø)
tests/test_oddball.py 81.54% <0.00%> (-1.20%) ⬇️

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner

nedbat commented Jan 15, 2021

Do you have any more information about what caused the conflict? This is the type of change that can hide useful information about a problem to be fixed. I see that it would be safe to add, but I have qualms.

@s0undt3ch
Copy link
Author

Not really, no. The information I currently know is what's mentioned on the description, sub-processes coverage.
What the misbehaving plugin(mine) is doing, can be seen here and here.
Does it help understand the problem?

@ProsperousHeart
Copy link
Contributor

This branch is out of date, and submission is 2+ years ago. Can it 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.

4 participants