trace.py and coverage.py

[Zooko]

I, Zooko, wrote the lines prepended with "> >":

 Gareth Rees <gdr at ravenbrook.com> wrote:
>
> >The usage interfaces are very different.  Not sure which, if either, 
> >is better.
> 
> In the coverage.py model you run tests, generate a report, use the 
> report to direct your testing activity to fruitful locations in the 
> code, generate a new report based on all the testing so far, and so 
> on.

I believe trace.py allows the same usage.


> >coverage.py is much faster.  In my tests, coverage.py takes less 
> >than 2 seconds where trace.py takes 30 seconds.
> 
> It's obvious where the bottleneck is in a tracing or coverage 
> application: it's the function that you pass to sys.settrace.  Here's 
> the tracing function from coverage.py:
> 
> c = {}
> def t(f, x, y):
>      c[(f.f_code.co_filename, f.f_lineno)] = 1
>      return t

I think you are right.  Here's the function in trace.py:

def localtrace_count(self, frame, why, arg):
    if why == 'line':
        (filename, lineno, funcname, context, lineindex,) = inspect.getframeinfo(frame)
        key = (filename, lineno,)
        self.counts[key] = self.counts.get(key, 0) + 1
    return self.localtrace


I vaguely recall changing from `f.f_code.co_filename' to `inspect.getframeinfo()'
because I thought I had encountered some mysterious problems with the `f_' 
members.

I'll experiment with coverage.py and see if it handles Mojo Nation as well as 
trace.py does.

Regards,

Zooko

---
                 zooko.com
Security and Distributed Systems Engineering
---