-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Problematic -> NoReturn
exclusion
#152
Comments
most |
@asottile I think that all of |
don't opt in to covdefaults if you don't want what it does? idk |
I want all it does, except for this one thing. Can't there be an option to modify the defaults similar to |
idk if it's possible you'd have to research and implement it since generally I'm moving more to an open source stance of: I'm not going to build something I won't use |
Just to clarify: are you saying the project doesn't want PRs either? |
that sounds like a PR to me no? |
It sounded like you didn't want to maintain any contributed code anymore. Accepting a PR includes reviewing, releasing, and maintaining new code, after all. So I had to ask. Maintaining a fork is also something I was considering if the divergence is too big. Other than that, copying-and-pasting https://github.com/asottile/covdefaults/blob/77f9ff9/covdefaults.py#L121-L122 is something I could delegate to a mentee 🤷♂️ Still, I need to check for one surprise incompatibility that popped up with PyPy to decide if it'll be possible to use the plugin even with that patch. |
no what I meant is I'm not building random features for free any more |
The plugin has
-> ['"]?NoReturn['"]?:
in excludes. However, when I attempted integratingcovdefaults
, a co-maintainer pointed out that it's useful to measure coverage in functions that always raise exceptions (aio-libs/yarl#1084 (comment)). One example isaiohttp
's web response exceptions raised from HTTP handlers like https://github.com/aio-libs/aiohttp/blob/731ba4d/tests/test_client_functional.py#L1178-L1179.@asottile could you document a justification for not measuring such cases? Any chance to have a way to remove this specific exclusion?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: