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

Update coverage to 4.3.3 #13

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

pyup-bot
Copy link
Contributor

There's a new version of coverage available.
You are currently using 4.3.1. I have updated it to 4.3.3

These links might come in handy: PyPI | Changelog | Docs

Changelog

4.3.3


  • Python 2.6 support was broken due to a testing exception imported for the
    benefit of the coverage.py test suite. Properly conditionalizing it fixed
    issue 554_ so that Python 2.6 works again.

.. _issue 554: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/554/traceback-on-python-26-starting-with-432

.. _changes_432:

4.3.2


  • Using the --skip-covered option on an HTML report with 100% coverage
    would cause a "No data to report" error, as reported in issue 549_. This is
    now fixed; thanks, Loïc Dachary.
  • If-statements can be optimized away during compilation, for example, if 0:
    or if __debug__:. Coverage.py had problems properly understanding these
    statements which existed in the source, but not in the compiled bytecode.
    This problem, reported in issue 522_, is now fixed.
  • If you specified --source as a directory, then coverage.py would look for
    importable Python files in that directory, and could identify ones that had
    never been executed at all. But if you specified it as a package name, that
    detection wasn't performed. Now it is, closing issue 426_. Thanks to Loïc
    Dachary for the fix.
  • If you started and stopped coverage measurement thousands of times in your
    process, you could crash Python with a "Fatal Python error: deallocating
    None" error. This is now fixed. Thanks to Alex Groce for the bug report.
  • On PyPy, measuring coverage in subprocesses could produce a warning: "Trace
    function changed, measurement is likely wrong: None". This was spurious, and
    has been suppressed.
  • Previously, coverage.py couldn't start on Jython, due to that implementation
    missing the multiprocessing module (issue 551). This problem has now been
    fixed. Also, issue 322
    about not being able to invoke coverage
    conveniently, seems much better: jython -m coverage run myprog.py works
    properly.
  • Let's say you ran the HTML report over and over again in the same output
    directory, with --skip-covered. And imagine due to your heroic
    test-writing efforts, a file just acheived the goal of 100% coverage. With
    coverage.py 4.3, the old HTML file with the less-than-100% coverage would be
    left behind. This file is now properly deleted.

.. _issue 322: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/322/cannot-use-coverage-with-jython
.. issue 426: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/426/difference-between-coverage-results-with
.. issue 522: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/522/incorrect-branch-reporting-with-__debug

.. _issue 549: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/549/skip-covered-with-100-coverage-throws-a-no
.. _issue 551: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/551/coveragepy-cannot-be-imported-in-jython27

.. _changes_431:

Got merge conflicts? Close this PR and delete the branch. I'll create a new PR for you.

Happy merging! 🤖

@pyup-bot pyup-bot mentioned this pull request Jan 17, 2017
@coveralls
Copy link

coveralls commented Jan 17, 2017

Coverage Status

Coverage remained the same at 99.526% when pulling 6f588d4 on pyup-update-coverage-4.3.1-to-4.3.3 into c58b5dd on master.

@pyup-bot
Copy link
Contributor Author

Closing this in favor of #16

@pyup-bot pyup-bot closed this Jan 17, 2017
@delgadom delgadom deleted the pyup-update-coverage-4.3.1-to-4.3.3 branch January 17, 2017 21:09
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.

None yet

2 participants