Skip to content
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

Update README.rst #592

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Update README.rst #592

wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

Jylpah
Copy link

@Jylpah Jylpah commented Apr 30, 2023

I propose adding clarification of the abbreviations in the coverage report. These are not mentioned anywhere in the documentation and there is even a StackOverflow question about those.

===== Addition to section "Usage" under the report ========

Where,

  • Stmts refers to the number of statements in your code.
  • Miss refers to the number of statements that have not been run.
  • Cover is test coverage, or (Stmts - Miss) / (Stmts) * 100.

===========================================

I can understand these are "obvious" for the experienced programmers, but maybe not for someone taking a code coverage tool into use for the first time.

I understand you want to keep the documentation short and to the point (it is).

Add clarification for abbreviations for "newbie" users
@nedbat
Copy link
Collaborator

nedbat commented Apr 30, 2023

Another option: add information like this to the coverage.py docs, with a clear indication from here that much of the pytest-cov behavior is from coverage.py.

@elrandira
Copy link

elrandira commented May 2, 2023

additionally, I have reports with Missing, Branch and BrPart columns.

As well some explanation on the coverage would be useful. I have notation like these in the Missing column:

  • 67: make sense
  • 128->130: make sense
  • 171->168: ???
  • 189->exit: ???

@webknjaz
Copy link
Member

webknjaz commented Nov 25, 2024

@elrandira

  • 171->168: ???

That's probably a loop with a continue statement.

  • 189->exit: ???

That's some control flow interrupt, I think. Perhaps some sort of if X: raise SystemExit where X is always False and the variant with it being True is not covered.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants