Re-add tests/ directory for coverage#3314
Conversation
|
Hm that didn't work. 🤔 EDIT: nevermind it did work, I don't know why the coverage report step of the Cython tests didn't show me what I was looking for. I guess maybe I somehow skipped the line while reading... |
Codecov Report✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3314 +/- ##
===============================================
Coverage 100.00000% 100.00000%
===============================================
Files 125 128 +3
Lines 19251 19269 +18
Branches 1304 1303 -1
===============================================
+ Hits 19251 19269 +18
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
The problem with This usually works best with Codecov, and But since something wasn't right in trio, I've been postponing the original merge. I'd recommend comparing the |
|
Note for a later search: for some reason
Yeah I tried to add a |
|
I think this would be nice to merge. Honestly, all this coverage stuff is frustrating and not worth the effort for Trio as it is now... we already have a good enough story here IMO! |
|
I still prefer |
|
I guess I'm confused about how that would work. Like, completely disregarding the exact settings we need, I imagine we want something like:
I think this PR accomplishes that. Respectively:
The part with |
sounds good enough to me, agree that coverage has been incredibly frustrating |
|
@A5rocks to me, saying that the entire repo is the sources we'd like to measure seems more semantically correct. Hence using What I don't like is that things under Do you have what didn't work exactly documented anywhere? Maybe some logs? I see the PR description implies that something doesn't work but doesn't really explain what that means. |
|
@A5rocks FYI merging this PR broke coverage on 3.14t on windows: https://github.com/python-trio/trio/actions/runs/19958666912/job/57271848880#step:4:1376. It wasn't rebased and so that job never ran here. Using merge queues could've prevented this. |
It's installed as a separate module. (so it's not covered under sources)
Good point, I should make a PR that does this change.
Probably all the logs are expired and anyways it's scattered in many places... I forgot why
Merge queues unfortunately require only one merge method and we alternate between squash merges and regular merges :( |
|
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm fairly certain the issue with |
Which is another sign that it should be under
This was actually my main point throughout discussions... But in my experience the best config is a combination of
Can it be because it wasn't combined with
Then, you'll need to require the PR branches to be up-to-date, meaning a rebase each time before merging a PR.
That's right. Correctly configured paths should map this properly. |
Making this PR to see if this quick fix works.
I want to double check that
source = ["."]doesn't work before merging this.