[PEAK] Conflict between PEAK and coverage.py

P.J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Tue Mar 22 18:18:35 EDT 2011

At 02:13 PM 3/22/2011 -0700, Bobby Impollonia wrote:
>It works correctly with --timid. It's somewhat inconvenient because it
>makes the tests run several times slower and nose's coverage plugin
>doesn't expose that option.

If you can get the coverage developers to tell me what DecoratorTools 
is doing wrong, exactly, I can try to fix it.

At the moment, DecoratorTools does use sys.get_trace() if available, 
and some of the problems it had (in previous versions) have been 
fixed (where it was assuming global/local functions were the 
same).  But, without the "--timid" option, coverage is using a 
C-level trace function, and I have no idea how those interact with 
the Python-level tracing support.

More information about the PEAK mailing list