Is anyone currently using these CLI commands?

[sbrandstaeter]

Is anyone currently using the coverage report CLI commands in their development workflow?
If I propose to replace them with documentation in a readme.

Any reply is highly appreciated including "I did not even know these commands existed".

Here are my thought on why:
I am talking about the following CLI utilities in pyproject.toml:

queens-build-html-coverage-report = "queens.utils.cli_utils:build_html_coverage_report"
queens-remove-html-coverage-report = "queens.utils.cli_utils:remove_html_coverage_report"

which are defined in src/queens/utils/cli.py

def build_html_coverage_report() -> None:
    ...
def remove_html_coverage_report() -> None:
    ...

I am sure these helpers have served (or may still serve) as a useful convenience and abbreviation for developers working in the repository. However, given the goal of distributing QUEENS as an installable package, I am not convinced they still belong in the public CLI.

My reasoning is that these utilities are tightly coupled to the repository structure and development environment rather than to end-user functionality. In particular, they rely on PATH_TO_ROOT and assume a specific repository layout. This works for local development inside the QUEENS repository, but it would not make much sense for a user who installs QUEENS via pip from PyPI, where the source root is not available in the same way.

Generating and cleaning coverage reports is primarily a developer task.
Therefore, I would suggest removing these commands from the codebase and instead documenting the recommended workflow for generating coverage reports during local development. Such documentation could either mirror the CI configuration or explicitly reference it. This would also avoid potential confusion if the CLI implementation and the CI pipeline ever diverge.

An alternative solution might be to introduce CLI development commands, if that is possible.
In that case, I still suggest moving the code to a different location though, probably in the test_utils folder.

What do you think? Are these commands still actively used, or would moving this functionality into the developer documentation be a reasonable cleanup?

[leahaeusel]

I am going to be honest: I didn't know these CLI commands existed, meaning I've never used them. When looking into specific coverage files, I have mostly used the preview_html_from_pr/preview_coverage.py file from our [queens-junk-drawer](https://github.com/queens-py/queens-junk-drawer) repo.

I see your point about why these CLI commands are not compatible with a future PyPI release, so I'm completely fine with replacing them with development documentation.

[sbrandstaeter]

So its good to have the exchange here. I was not fully aware of the queens-junk-drawer repo (anymore).

[sbrandstaeter]

Some realisation I had after posting:

1. I highly doubt that anyone was using the mentioned CLI commands since they should not work.
   queens-build-html-coverage-report = "queens.utils.cli_utils:build_html_coverage_report" points to queens/utils/cli_utils.py, which does not exist anymore. build_html_coverage_report is defined in queens/utils/cli.py.

2. We could introduce Pixi tasks. Development tasks, could, for example, be done with:

   [tool.pixi.feature.dev.tasks]
   build-html-coverage-report = 'pytest -m "unit_tests or integration_tests or integration_tests_fourc" --cov --cov-  report=html:html_coverage_report'
   remove-html-coverage-report = "rm -rf html_coverage_report .coverage*"

   In general this feature is quite nice and could be useful. For the coverage report, I am not sure if we really need them.