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

Handle precision for fail-under option #656

Merged
merged 7 commits into from
Sep 17, 2024
Merged

Conversation

ionelmc
Copy link
Member

@ionelmc ionelmc commented Sep 16, 2024

No description provided.

@ionelmc
Copy link
Member Author

ionelmc commented Sep 16, 2024

@nedbat I am hoping I can use display_covered and should_fail_under from coverage.results without worries of them disappearing in a future coverage version.

@nedbat
Copy link
Collaborator

nedbat commented Sep 16, 2024

@nedbat I am hoping I can use display_covered and should_fail_under from coverage.results without worries of them disappearing in a future coverage version.

I'm not sure how best to make that promise. I'd be inclined to move them to a new public module. For now, know that things don't change much, and we'll hear about it if it breaks.

@ionelmc ionelmc merged commit 310feb0 into master Sep 17, 2024
26 checks passed
@Colin-b
Copy link

Colin-b commented Oct 23, 2024

Hello @ionelmc

Do you have a planning in mind to release this feature?

Thanks again !

@ionelmc
Copy link
Member Author

ionelmc commented Oct 29, 2024

Just released.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants