-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 438
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
Comments
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...!) |
This is a good idea, thanks. |
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. |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 .coveragercSpot the problems with these files:
Did you notice that
branch
was in thereport
section when it should have been inrun
? 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:
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!The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: