Remove some coverage-related options from test.junit.

Review Request #2639 - Created Aug. 16, 2015 and submitted

Information
Benjy Weinberger
pants
fa31357...
Reviewers
pants-reviews
jsirois, stuhood, zundel
There's no harm in always generating all three formats (text, xml, html)
when running coverage. The performance difference is almost certainly
negligible compared with the time it takes to run tests (and my manual
benchmarking showed no difference).

Also made several other options advanced.

CI passes: https://travis-ci.org/pantsbuild/pants/builds/75819332

Manual testing that coverage still works as expected, and all three report formats are produced. Also tested that --coverage-open opens the coverage report in a browser and that it implies --coverage if specifed on the cmd line. Also tested that setting coverage_open: True in config does what you'd want (i.e., it doesn't imply --coverage, but if the user specifies --coverage on the cmd line the html report is opened in a browser without requiring --coverage-open on the cmd line).

Benjy Weinberger
Benjy Weinberger
John Sirois
Benjy Weinberger
Benjy Weinberger
Review request changed

Status: Closed (submitted)

Change Summary:

Submitted as 4a86f2e8b0ee4901f4a0fb6cb47f7cf6c513efa5.

Benjy Weinberger

Thanks John!

Stu Hood
Ship It!
Loading...