Message166762
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
bkabrda, chris.jerdonek, ncoghlan, nedbat, pitrou, serhiy.storchaka |
| Date |
2012年07月29日.14:18:58 |
| SpamBayes Score |
-1.0 |
| Marked as misclassified |
Yes |
| Message-id |
<1343571402.3388.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<1343567082.39.0.563553998846.issue14803@psf.upfronthosting.co.za> |
| Content |
> > I'm -0.5 myself, though, for the reason that it complicates the startup
> > process a little bit more, without looking very compelling. It smells
> > disturbingly like LD_PRELOAD to me.
>
> Antoine, do you have a suggestion for how to solve the coverage.py
> problem? To re-iterate: imagine you have a large test suite, and it
> spawns python processes during the tests. Mercurial, for example, is
> like this. You want to measure the coverage of your test suite. This
> means not do you have to invoke the main suite with "python
> coverage.py run tests.py" instead of "python tests.py", but all the
> subprocess invocations need to invoke coverage.py as well.
Ok, sorry then, I retract what I said. I agree the use case is
legitimate. |
|