[core-workflow] My initial thoughts on the steps/blockers of the transition

[Donald Stufft]

> On Jan 4, 2016, at 10:45 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 5 January 2016 at 11:08, Donald Stufft <donald at stufft.io> wrote:
>> 
>> On Jan 4, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Brett Cannon <brett at python.org> wrote:
>>> We should try to get test coverage wired up as well per CI. I don't know if
>>> coveralls.io or some other provider is best, but we should see what is
>>> available and find out if we can use them to either get basic coverage or
>>> thorough coverage (read https://hg.python.org/devinabox/file/tip/README#l124
>>> to see what thorough coverage entails, but it does require a checkout of
>>> coverage.py).
>> 
>> I prefer codecov, but it shouldn’t be too hard to do. I tried to get Python
>> + C coverage checking in the demo with that, but I failed at making the C
>> coverage work.
> 
> Another posslble tool worth considering is diff_cover:
> https://pypi.python.org/pypi/diff_cover/
> 
> That uses git diff to find the lines affected by a patch and
> specifically looks up *those lines* in a coverage report, so it can
> ensure that any lines changed by a patch are covered by the regression
> test suite. It appears to be a neat way of guiding a code base towards
> more comprehensive test coverage.
> 


FWIW codecov has that built in.

-----------------
Donald Stufft
PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/core-workflow/attachments/20160104/8d45f254/attachment-0001.sig>