Add Coveralls support

[trdarr]

🎤 Check, 1, 2, 3…

[smholloway]

So this will allow us to see our test coverage at https://coveralls.io/r/toopher? I like it.

[smholloway]

Still interested in this idea?

[egrim]

Are you asking someone specific? If it's me: I haven't followed this so
I'm afraid I don't know if I'm interested or not.

On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 6:13 PM, Seth Holloway [email protected]:

Still interested in this idea?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/28#issuecomment-40323224
.

[trdarr]

@egrim

Are you asking someone specific?

I assume he was asking me.

@smholloway

Still interested in this idea?

Yes, but it's not at the top of my to-do list.

[smholloway]

It appears to me that the work is done and we're ready to merge. So, can we merge this? If not, what is our criteria for done?

[trdarr]

Yeah, what we have works. Do we care about code coverage for the tests?

[smholloway]

Test coverage seems useful to me. With Coveralls we can more easily tell if someone added code without adding sufficient tests. It's free and relatively easy to integrate 💯

[trdarr]

My comment was ambiguous. We care about code coverage for __init__.py, of course, but do we also care about code coverage for tests.py? That's what Coveralls currently gives us and it's why I was on the fence about this PR being “complete.”

[smholloway]

What am I missing? Looking at the most recent build I see coverage numbers for toopher/__init__.py.

COVERAGE FILE LINES RELEVANT COVERED MISSED HITS/LINE
96.26% toopher/init.py 274 187 180 7 1.0
97.57% tests.py 445 288 281 7 1.0

Red/green coverage output here: https://coveralls.io/files/168521327

[trdarr]

I didn't want to merge the PR until I was sure that we're okay with coverage for test.py, which that report includes in addition to coverage for __init__.py.

[egrim]

I don't think the coverage report for tests.py adds much information
(unless you're a test writer, I suppose).

On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Thomas Darr [email protected]:

I didn't want to merge the PR until I was sure that we're okay with
coverage for test.py, which that report includes in addition to coverage
for init.py.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/28#issuecomment-40398369
.

[smholloway]

So, we need to figure out how to exclude coverage on tests.py? I don't think the information is dangerous--just not generally useful--so I vote to include it and

[smholloway]

The test file is now omitted; see https://coveralls.io/builds/781900. I will merge tomorrow afternoon unless someone objects.