Skip code coverage for specific dask lines #1829
Conversation
| except AttributeError: # pragma: no cover | ||
| cpus = psutil.cpu_count() # pragma: no cover |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe you can put # pragma: no cover at the top of any block and it prevents tracking coverage for all lines in that block. So you wouldn't need the pragma on line 1242. I think this also works for functions.
| approximate='1 hour') | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def test_warning_not_enough_chunks(pd_es, capsys, three_worker_scheduler): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I believe you can put a single # pragma: no cover at the end of this line and avoid putting one on each line of the function body.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did this section get updated? I'm seeing that the function still has a pragma no cover on each line.
featuretools/computational_backends/calculate_feature_matrix.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
featuretools/tests/computational_backend/test_calculate_feature_matrix.py
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
| approximate='1 hour') | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| def test_warning_not_enough_chunks(pd_es, capsys, three_worker_scheduler): |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did this section get updated? I'm seeing that the function still has a pragma no cover on each line.
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1829 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 98.74% 98.79% +0.04%
==========================================
Files 142 142
Lines 15841 15820 -21
==========================================
- Hits 15642 15629 -13
+ Misses 199 191 -8
Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
rwedge
left a comment
rwedge
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should make an issue to figure out why sometimes the entire test_warning_not_enough_chunks is uncovered
| es, | ||
| verbose=True) | ||
| assert False | ||
| assert False # pragma: no cover |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
can this line reasonably be hit?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you suggesting we take out the line completely?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It could be that this assertion was placed here to indicate that whatever comes before it is intended to cover all cases. I sometimes do this, for example, if I have a string of if statements that are meant to cover all the possible types of values that might be passed to a function. Then, I'll include a final else: that just has something like raise Exception("invariant") or assert False. It shows very clearly that the if statements were supposed to handle any kind of value that came in and that they should have explicitly listed out the supported value types.
davesque
left a comment
davesque
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for making those changes! Looks good to me.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.