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

Pragmas on continued long lines don't work #754

Closed
nedbat opened this issue Jan 10, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1773
Closed

Pragmas on continued long lines don't work #754

nedbat opened this issue Jan 10, 2019 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1773
Labels
bug Something isn't working

Comments

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner

nedbat commented Jan 10, 2019

(From https://stackoverflow.com/questions/54111889/coverage-pragma-no-branch-with-multiline-statement)

A pragma comment on the continuation lines of a multi-line if-statement won't have an effect:

For the python coverage package, a missing else can be ignored for the resulting coverage by using # pragma: no branch.

It seems, that this is not working when breaking a long if statement in multiple lines like this:

if this_is_a_verylong_boolean_expression == True and another_long_expression \
    and here_another_expression:  # pragma: no branch
    do_something()
@devdanzin
Copy link
Contributor

This happens because coverage.results.Analysis.arcs_missing() depends on coverage.parser.PythonParser.lines_matching() to collect lines marked as pragma: no branch, but lines_matching() records the raw line number of the match, not taking multi-line statements into account.

If we record the lines by mapping them using parser._multiline instead, the pragma works.

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented May 2, 2024

Fixed in commit 277c8c4

@nedbat
Copy link
Owner Author

nedbat commented May 4, 2024

This is now released as part of coverage 7.5.1.

renovate bot added a commit to allenporter/flux-local that referenced this issue May 4, 2024
[![Mend
Renovate](https://app.renovatebot.com/images/banner.svg)](https://renovatebot.com)

This PR contains the following updates:

| Package | Change | Age | Adoption | Passing | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [coverage](https://togithub.com/nedbat/coveragepy) | `==7.5.0` ->
`==7.5.1` |
[![age](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/age/pypi/coverage/7.5.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|
[![adoption](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/adoption/pypi/coverage/7.5.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|
[![passing](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/compatibility/pypi/coverage/7.5.0/7.5.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|
[![confidence](https://developer.mend.io/api/mc/badges/confidence/pypi/coverage/7.5.0/7.5.1?slim=true)](https://docs.renovatebot.com/merge-confidence/)
|

---

### Release Notes

<details>
<summary>nedbat/coveragepy (coverage)</summary>

###
[`v7.5.1`](https://togithub.com/nedbat/coveragepy/blob/HEAD/CHANGES.rst#Version-751--2024-05-04)

[Compare
Source](https://togithub.com/nedbat/coveragepy/compare/7.5.0...7.5.1)

- Fix: a pragma comment on the continuation lines of a multi-line
statement
now excludes the statement and its body, the same as if the pragma is
on the first line. This closes `issue 754`*. The fix was contributed by
    `Daniel Diniz <pull 1773_>`*.

- Fix: very complex source files like `this one <resolvent_lookup_>`\_
could
cause a maximum recursion error when creating an HTML report. This is
now
    fixed, closing `issue 1774`\_.

-   HTML report improvements:

- Support files (JavaScript and CSS) referenced by the HTML report now
have
hashes added to their names to ensure updated files are used instead of
        stale cached copies.

- Missing branch coverage explanations that said "the condition was
never
false" now read "the condition was always true" because it's easier to
        understand.

- Column sort order is remembered better as you move between the index
pages,
        fixing `issue 1766`*.  Thanks, `Daniel Diniz <pull 1768_>`*.

.. \_resolvent_lookup:
https://github.com/sympy/sympy/blob/130950f3e6b3f97fcc17f4599ac08f70fdd2e9d4/sympy/polys/numberfields/resolvent_lookup.py
.. \_issue
754[nedbat/coveragepy#754
.. \_issue
176[nedbat/coveragepy#1766
.. \_pull
17[nedbat/coveragepy#1768
.. \_pull
1[nedbat/coveragepy#1773
.. \_issue
[nedbat/coveragepy#1774

.. \_changes\_7-5-0:

</details>

---

### Configuration

📅 **Schedule**: Branch creation - At any time (no schedule defined),
Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 **Automerge**: Enabled.

♻ **Rebasing**: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the
rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 **Ignore**: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update
again.

---

- [ ] <!-- rebase-check -->If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check
this box

---

This PR has been generated by [Mend
Renovate](https://www.mend.io/free-developer-tools/renovate/). View
repository job log
[here](https://developer.mend.io/github/allenporter/flux-local).

<!--renovate-debug:eyJjcmVhdGVkSW5WZXIiOiIzNy4zMzEuMCIsInVwZGF0ZWRJblZlciI6IjM3LjMzMS4wIiwidGFyZ2V0QnJhbmNoIjoibWFpbiIsImxhYmVscyI6W119-->

Co-authored-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
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

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants