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

Error on unrecognised configuration directive in .coveragerc #386

Closed
nedbat opened this issue Jul 27, 2015 · 6 comments
Closed

Error on unrecognised configuration directive in .coveragerc #386

nedbat opened this issue Jul 27, 2015 · 6 comments
Labels
enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner

nedbat commented Jul 27, 2015

Originally reported by Kristian Glass (Bitbucket: DoISmellBurning, GitHub: DoISmellBurning)


I'd love it if coverage gave me an error if it encountered unrecognised directives in .coveragerc

Spot the problems with these files:

[run]
source = foo

[report]
branch = True

Did you notice that branch was in the report section when it should have been in run? You probably did, because you were deliberately looking for mistakes and it's a short file, but it's very easy to miss at a glance!

What about:

[report]
fail_under = 100

I cheated here. That's absolutely fine if you're using 4.0aSomething, but 3.7.1 doesn't support that directive (#314) which is entirely reasonable, but it's sure unpleasant to discover that you thought you were mandating 100% coverage but actually weren't...!

Some sort of "I don't know what to do with foo!" reporting, even if just a warning/informational message, would be incredibly useful please!


@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Jul 27, 2015

Original comment by Kristian Glass (Bitbucket: DoISmellBurning, GitHub: DoISmellBurning)


(And, particularly given #314, I'd love to see this in 3.7.x if possible please...!)

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Jul 27, 2015

This is a good idea, thanks.

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Jul 28, 2015

We might have just set a record for shortest time between suggesting a feature, and implementing it: 9f3a10cb5a0d (bb)

I'm not doing any more work on the 3.x line, but I will make the docs clearer about what is new in 4.0.

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Jul 28, 2015

Original comment by Kristian Glass (Bitbucket: DoISmellBurning, GitHub: DoISmellBurning)


<3 thanks very much! :D

Cheeky question - any feel for when there might be a definitive 4.x release? We've totally got stuff still on 3.7, and requires.io won't bump things until there's a stable version to bump to...

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Jul 28, 2015

Hmm, 4.0 is getting closer, but it has been a while. I would estimate a 4.0 final in perhaps two-month's time. requires.io doesn't like requirement specs like coverage>=4.0a6 ? Or direct bitbucket or github urls?

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented Jul 28, 2015

Original comment by Kristian Glass (Bitbucket: DoISmellBurning, GitHub: DoISmellBurning)


Awesome thanks :)

We have a policy of pinning test dependency versions, and requires.io won't prompt to upgrade existing projects with coverage==3.7.1 - we hand-update when we notice, but it's easy to miss!

@nedbat nedbat closed this as completed Jul 28, 2015
@nedbat nedbat added major enhancement New feature or request labels Jun 23, 2018
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant