Saturday 7 March 2009 — This is more than 14 years old. Be careful.
I’m undertaking a significant overhaul of coverage.py, my Python code coverage measurement tool. The first release of it is ready: coverage.py v3.0b1. Changes include:
- Coverage.py is now a package rather than a module. The name is now a bit of a misnomer, since there is no longer a file named coverage.py. Functionality has been split into classes.
- The trace function is implemented in C for speed.
- Executable lines are identified by reading the line number tables in the compiled code, removing a great deal of complicated analysis code.
- The singleton coverage object is only created if the module-level functions are used. This maintains the old interface while allowing better programmatic use of coverage.py.
- The minimum supported Python version is 2.3. Python 3.0 is not supported.
- Precisely which lines are considered executable has changed in some cases. Therefore, your coverage stats may also change slightly compared to earlier versions of coverage.py.
As you can see, very little has changed functionally since v2.85. So far this is a refactoring, reimplementation, and repackaging effort. The new code will be a much better foundation for more interesting changes in the future. This beta 1 release is so I can find out if I’ve screwed up anything so far or not.
You can download the kit in one of two ways:
- As source: coverage-3.0b1.tar.gz.
- As a Windows installer for Pythons 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, or 2.6.
If you find a problem, you can file a bug on bitbucket.org, or send me an email. Discussion is welcome on the Testing In Python mailing list.
If you want, you can let Bitbucket take care of hosting the archives as well. It accepts tag/branch names, so this will work:
You can also link to snapshots by entering 'tip.zip', etc.
I'm not very experienced in Python, but found two remarks to tell you:
1) The exclude configuration command excludes everything under a statement, in the tree sense. This is clearly stated in the docs, but say you don't want a line like to be reported as uncovered, if you 'exclude' it using this class is then not analysed, which is not what I want.
I found a slow workaround (which is enough for my needs): So what do you think of excluding lines only instead of branches?
2) My workaround needed to repack the not covered lines in the coalesced form. I found it could be nice to be able to access your function in an easier way than what I had to write: Thanks again!
Can you start coverage before importing the class definitions?
Ok, I understand now. I indeed thought it was weird that those lines were not marked as executed. In fact I build the test suite, then pass it to the test runner that starts/stops coverage for each tested module. Gonna see if I can start coverage before importing my modules without too much work, else I'll stick with my hacky hack until other problems arise (like speed of execution).
Add a comment: