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

BUG: inconsistent meaning of skip_covered between coverage report and coverage html #1784

Open
neutrinoceros opened this issue May 16, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@neutrinoceros
Copy link

neutrinoceros commented May 16, 2024

Describe the bug

The "total" line in coverage html's output isn't consistent with that from coverage report when [report] skip_covered=true, despite the parameter being explicitly used by both commands.
Basically, the inline report includes 100% covered files in the total metric, while the html report doesn't, effectively giving a different metric.

To Reproduce
I'll link a github repo with a full minimal reproducer once this issue is published and has an associated number.

update: here it is https://github.com/neutrinoceros/reprod_coveragepy_1784

Expected behavior
I don't think any of these metrics are incorrect, and in fact they're both useful, but the inconsistency is confusing, so I'd suggest including both metrics in all reports when [report] skip_covered=true, possibly only when they are different (which should be anytime some but not all files are at 100% coverage).

Additional context
Add any other context about the problem here.

@neutrinoceros neutrinoceros added bug Something isn't working needs triage labels May 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants