-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 448
Coverage regression for 3.10b4+ (nested if's?) #1188
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
Comments
Thanks, I've reduced the function down and reported it to CPython as https://bugs.python.org/issue44626. |
I don't know if it's possible to indicate the other failures you are seeing. Some will likely be duplicates of this one, but there might be new scenarios also. |
It's easy to reproduce the failure in the exponential.py (see the description). Other failures I've seen in the functions module looks like this one. I suspect the main issue of this report might be same, but I'm not sure. BTW, to reproduce regressions in the exponential.py you can run just
This should cover all mentioned jumps.
Yes, I'll try to examine them as well. Some strange things happen, that looks like a coveragepy or codecov problems. For instance, I see increase or decrease of the lines hit number (there is no diff wrt the master branch). E.g. here. |
UPD: For the second example I got 100% coverage of this "if" block by adding "else: pass" clause after the line 335. I think, I've found a simplest example:
Again, "else: pass" after line 5 does "fix" this regression. |
Both problems seems to be resolved. |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
To Reproduce
For the pr diofant/diofant#1128 try:
Expected behavior
Mentioned jumps are covered under CPython 3.9.
Additional context
Probably, related coverage failures are in the diofant/functions submodule (should be 100% covered). For instance:
Jumps 334->exit, 342->exit and 504->exit should be covered.
PS: I'll try to reduce examples.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: