Reverse output order #66
Open
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I second this pull. |
|
Tested (not thoroughly) and agreed. |
|
Spoke too soon. Seems like test coverage matrix disappears on occasion (not sure why - seems almost random). |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Once I got coverage reporting working, my first reaction was that the output was in the wrong order; I need to scroll back pages to find out if all my tests passed and how good my coverage actually is. This pull request is to reverse the order of output, so the annotated source is output first, followed by the coverage summary, followed by the test result summary.
I haven't looked at making test failure output come after the coverage reporting as (a) I suspect it isn't buffered, on account of (b) i suspect it would be bad to buffer it for a large test suite with lots of failures ;-) and (c) I can run without -c when I want to see that information.
Next on the todo list would be to provide an option to output the coverage summary without the coverage detail, perhaps making that the default with -c (in other words, add options to turn on/off coverage detail reporting and, given that option, perhaps turn it off by default).