Coverage: add more exclusions#7666
Merged
Merged
Conversation
nulano
reviewed
Dec 31, 2023
Contributor
+1 for deleting it, it's easy to temporarily recreate if necessary. |
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Changes proposed in this pull request:
exclude_alsoinstead ofexclude_lineswhich requires re-enabling the standard pragmacreate_lut()was a helper method not run anywhere, should we delete it instead?class TypeGuardis compatibility code being introduced in Add type hints to _util #7642. We have a# type: ignore[no-redef]on it, and I don't think we need to cover it in tests either.