Should this be moved into coverage.py?

[nedbat]

How does this relate to https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/378/default-support-for-coverage_process_start ? What needs to be done to it still?

[bukzor]

Hi Ned!

I think this is an implementation of that feature request.
I believe it's production worthy, with the caveat that it does not give
subprocess support under easy-install (which includes install -e / setup.py
install).

My intent was to use this myself for a bit, then port it to be a coveragepy
feature branch.

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 5:17 AM Ned Batchelder [email protected]
wrote:

How does this relate to
https://bitbucket.org/ned/coveragepy/issues/378/default-support-for-coverage_process_start
? What needs to be done to it still?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#1.

[blueyed]

Would be great to have this by default, i.e. in coveragepy.

with the caveat that it does not give
subprocess support under easy-install (which includes install -e / setup.py
install).

To be clear: this means pip install -eing coverage-enable-subprocess - it works for installing your own app in develop mode.

Is this required to be included with coveragepy (i.e. where coveragepy would be installed in develop mode), @nedbat ?
(related issue #2)

[ssbarnea]

@nedbat WDYT about this? AFAIK, is still valid.

[bukzor]

FWIW: I still use it and it still works well, given the setup shown in readme.

[wimglenn]

Updated Ned link nedbat/coveragepy#378