-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 436
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
annotate: annotate missing branches with "~" #676
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
@blueyed Thanks for persisting with this. I've never valued the annotation feature. Do you use it? |
@@ -0,0 +1,36 @@ | |||
# Licensed under the Apache License: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 | |||
# For details: https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/src/default/NOTICE.txt |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
You'll need to correct the NOTICE links to GitHub to get the tests to pass.
@@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ def annotate_file(self, fr, analysis): | |||
statements = sorted(analysis.statements) | |||
missing = sorted(analysis.missing) | |||
excluded = sorted(analysis.excluded) | |||
missing_branches = sorted(analysis.missing_branch_arcs().keys()) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There's no reason to sort this, since we're just using in
on it. Making it a set would be better. Same for excluded
, though that was my fault! :) statements
and missing
need to be sorted because of how the algorithm walks them in tandem.
Yes, but mostly for debugging/developing. I've just created #677 - where this is included already (without the tests). |
0c14f1a
to
82169a6
Compare
No description provided.